DRAFT Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

September 2020

Lead Agency:

City of Santa Ana 220 S. Daisy Ave Santa Ana, California 92703

Prepared by:

2861 Pullman Street Santa Ana, California 92705

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTIC TO GRAVITY SEWER CONVERSION PROJECT

Lead Agency: City of Santa Ana

Project Proponent: City of Santa Ana

Project Location: The project site is located in the Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue, and Deodar Street neighborhood within the City of Santa Ana.

Project Description: The proposed Project involves installing sewer mains and laterals to help transfer existing residences from septic systems to the City’s sewer system. The Project would install approximately 670 linear feet (LF) of 8-inch sewer main and 4-inch laterals within Pasadena and Medford Avenue from Deodar Street to the west. The Project also replaces the outdated 6” water main and laterals within Deodar Street, Medford Avenue, and Pasadena Avenue. The proposed 8” water main would connect at 17th Street approximately 210’ west of Deodar Street, install 1420 LF of 8” water main at Deodar Street, and install an additional 670 LF in Medford and Pasadena Avenue. The Project would install a total of 2,300 LF of 8” water main and transfer 50 properties from City of Tustin water to the City of Santa Ana. The improvements would include replacement of curb and gutter, driveways, street asphalt and other infrastructure where necessary.

Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to start in 2021 with an approximate duration of nine months. Construction of the sewer and water improvements would occur concurrently.

Public Review Period: October 23, 2020 to November 21, 2020

Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Significant Effects:

Geology and Soils

GEO-1: Unanticipated Discovery – Paleontological Resource. If paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) are discovered during excavation activities, the contractor will notify the City and cease excavation within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontological professional can provide an evaluation of the site. The qualified paleontological professional will evaluate the significance of the find and recommend appropriate measures for the disposition of the site (e.g. fossil recovery, curation, data recovery, and/or monitoring). Construction activities may continue on other parts

September 2020 1-1 Draft MND Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

of the construction site while evaluation and treatment of the paleontological resource takes place.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

HAZ-1: Traffic Control Plan. Prior to construction, the City of Santa Ana (or its contractor) shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan to ensure proper access to residences and businesses in the area by emergency vehicles during construction and to maintain traffic flow. The Traffic Control Plan shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana prior to any lane closures.

Noise

NOI-1: The Project construction and improvement plans will include the following requirements for construction activities:

• Construction contracts must specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state-required noise attenuation devices.

• A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall be posted at the Project construction site providing a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. This sign shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities. In conjunction with this required posting, a noise disturbance coordinator will be identified to address any construction noise concerns received. The coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City. All signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator.

• Identification of construction noise reduction methods. These reduction methods may include shutting off idling equipment (5 minutes), installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and using electric air compressors and similar power tools.

• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.

• Per Section 18-314of the City’s Municipal Code, construction shall be prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or Saturday, or any time on Sunday or federal holidays

Draft MND 1-2 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

height, and location of noise control barrier walls should be adequate to assure proper acoustical performance and withstand structural failure.

Tribal Cultural Resources

TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant: The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both ancestrally affiliated with the project area and approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. A Native American monitor shall be retained by the Lead Agency or owner of the project to be on site to monitor all project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities (i.e., boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, etc.). A monitor associated with one of the NAHC recognized Tribal governments which have commented on the project shall provide the Native American monitor. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources.

Draft MND 1-3 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

TCR-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.

TCR-5: Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant will immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are human and subsequently Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD).

TCR-6: Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects.

TCR-7: Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour

Draft MND 1-4 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

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

Draft MND 1-5 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

CONTENTS

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration – Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project ...... 1 Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Significant Effects ...... 2 SECTION 1.0 Background ...... 1-1 1.1 Summary ...... 1-1 1.2 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.3 Surrounding Land Uses/Environmental Setting ...... 1-1 SECTION 2.0 Project Description ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Characteristics ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Timing ...... 2-1 2.3 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals ...... 2-3 2.4 Consultation With California Native American Tribe(s) ...... 2-3 SECTION 3.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected and Determination ...... 3-1 3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected...... 3-1 SECTION 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Discussion ...... 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics ...... 4-1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 4-2 4.3 Air Quality ...... 4-4 4.4 Biological Resources ...... 4-14 4.5 Cultural Resources ...... 4-17 4.6 Energy ...... 4-18 4.7 Geology and Soils ...... 4-22 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4-26 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 4-29 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 4-32 4.11 Land Use and Planning ...... 4-34 4.12 Mineral Resources ...... 4-35 4.13 Noise ...... 4-36 4.14 Population and Housing ...... 4-41 4.15 Public Services ...... 4-44 4.16 Recreation ...... 4-44 4.17 Transportation ...... 4-45 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 4-47 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 4-52 4.20 Wildfire ...... 4-54

Table of Contents i September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 4-56 SECTION 5.0 List of Preparers ...... 5-1 5.1 City of Santa Ana ...... 5-1 5.2 ECORP Consulting, Inc...... 5-1 SECTION 6.0 Bibliography ...... 6-1 SECTION 7.0 List of Appendices ...... 7-1

Appendix A – Project Site Photos

Appendix B – Emissions Technical Memorandum

Appendix C – Noise Technical Memorandum

Appendix D – Cultural Records Search

Appendix E – Tribal Resources Consultation

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Surrounding Land Uses ...... 1-2 Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis) ...... 4-8 Table 4.3-2. Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions ...... 4-10 Table 4.6-1. Residential Electricity Consumption in Orange County 2013-2017 ...... 4-19 Table 4.6-2. Residential Natural Gas Consumption in Orange County 2013-2017 ...... 4-19 Table 4.6-3. Automotive Fuel Consumption in Orange County 2015-2019 ...... 4-20 Table 4.6-4. Proposed Project Energy and Fuel Consumption ...... 4-21 Table 4.8-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4-27 Table 4.8-2. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4-27 Table 4.13-1. Onsite Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels by Receptor Distance and Construction Equipment ...... 4-38 Table 4.13-2. Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment at 20 Feet ...... 4-40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Vicinity ...... 1-3 Figure 2. Project Location ...... 1-4 Figure 3. Project Site Plan ...... 2-2

Table of Contents ii September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AB Assembly Bill AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CH4 Methane CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CO Plan Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide CRHR California Register of Historic Places CWA California Water Act DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIC Eastern Information Center EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map GHGs Greenhouse Gases LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MLD Most Likely Descendent MMT Million Metric Tons MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

MTCO2eq Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NAHC Native American Heritage Commission ND Negative Declaration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

N2O Nitrous Oxide

NOx Nitrogen Oxides NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHV Off-Highway Vehicle OPR California Office of Planning and Research

Table of Contents iii September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

PM10 and PM2.5 Particulate Matter RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ROG Reactive Organic Gases RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SIP State Implementation Plan SP Service Population SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SR State Route SRA Sensitive Receptor Area SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

Table of Contents iv September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

SECTION 1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Summary

Project Title: Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency Lead Agency Name and Address: 20 Civic Center Plaza Ross Annex, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92702

Armando Fernandez, P.E. Contact Person and Phone Number: Senior Civil Engineer Water Resources Division City of Santa Ana (714) 647-3379

Project Location: The project site is located in Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue, Deodar Street, and 17th Street within the City of Santa Ana (Figures 1 and 2).

General Plan Designation: Public Right-of-Way (ROW) and Suburban Residential (1-B)

Zoning: Public Right-of-Way

1.2 Introduction

The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency for this Initial Study. The Initial Study has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project (Proposed Project). This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of Projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those Projects. A CEQA Initial Study is generally used to determine which CEQA document is appropriate for a Project (Negative Declaration [ND], Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND], or Environmental Impact Report [EIR]).

1.3 Surrounding Land Uses/Environmental Setting

The Proposed Project is located in the Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue, and Deodar Street neighborhood within the City of Santa Ana (Figure 1 and 2). The project area is characterized by residential and commercial land uses (Appendix A. Project Site Photos). Surrounding land uses are described in Table 1-1 below.

Background 1-1 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Table 1-1. Surrounding Land Uses Title General Plan Designation Existing Land Use

Project Site Single and Multi-Family Public ROW, Suburban Residential (1B)1 Residential, Commercial

North Single and Multi-Family Low-Density Residential (LR-7)2 Residential

East Suburban Residential (1B)1 Single-Family Residential

South General Commercial (GC)2 Commercial

West Commercial, Multi-Family General Commercial (GC)2 Residential

Source: 1 – Orange County 2015, 2 – City of Santa Ana 2018

Background 1-2 September 2020 (2019-025)

Size of printing extent and margins differs with printer settings, please adjust margins if necessary. NOTE: This map is set up in NAD 1983 California Teale Albers. Please Change to Define Your Local State Plane or UTM Coordinate System.

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

Project Location

(AA)-mapping_guest 6/3/2019

I Mile s

0 1 2 Location: N:\2019\2019-025 Santa Ana Septic to Sewer\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\SA_Septic_to_Sewer_Vicinity.mxd Map Date: 6/3/2019 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 1. Regional Project Location 2019-025 Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project Size of printing extent and margins differs with printer settings, please adjust margins if necessary. NOTE: This map is set up in NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet. Please Change to Define Your Local State Plane or UTM Coordinate System.

Avalon Ave Map Features

Project Alignment Tustin Ave Tustin

Catalina Ave Catalina Ave

Laurie Ln

Lenita Ln

Tustin Ave Deodar St

PasadenaSt 55

·|}þ FairmontWay

Ponderosa St Medford Rd Old Tustin Ave Tustin Old Medford Ave

Carroll Way Carroll

(AA)-trotellini 9/16/2020

17th St

Yorba St Vandenberg Ln Tustin Ave Tustin

Fe et

0 200 400 Location: N:\2019\2019-025 Santa Ana Septic to Sewer\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\SA_Septic_to_Sewer_Location.mxd Map Date: 9/16/2020 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 2. Project Location 2019-025 Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Conversion Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Characteristics

Septic to Sewer Conversion. The proposed Project involves installing sewer mains and laterals to help transfer existing residences from septic systems to the City’s sewer system. The Project would install approximately 670 LF of 8-inch sewer main within Pasadena and Medford Avenue from Deodar Street to the west. This segment would also include the installation of twenty 4” sewer laterals, two new 48-inch sewer manholes, and modifications to one 48-inch sewer manhole. The Project would also install eight additional 4” sewer laterals on Deodar Street. The Project would assist homeowners with the transferring of the private side connection to the public sewer main at all 28 residential properties. Please see Figure 3 for a site plan of the proposed sewer improvements.

Water Service. The proposed Project also replaces the outdated 6” water main and laterals within 17th Street, Deodar Street, Medford Avenue, and Pasadena Avenue. The proposed 8” water main would connect at 17th Street approximately 210’ west of Deodar Street, install 1420 linear feet of 8” water main at Deodar Street, and install an additional 670 LF in Medford and Pasadena Avenue. The Project would install a total of 2300 LF of 8” water main and transfer 50 properties from City of Tustin water to the City of Santa Ana. Please see Figure 3 for a site plan of the proposed water service improvements.

The sewer and water improvements would also include replacement of curb and gutter, driveways, street asphalt and other infrastructure where necessary.

2.2 Project Timing

Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to start in 2021 with an approximate duration of nine months. Construction of the sewer and water improvements would occur concurrently.

Project Description 2-1 September 2020 (2019-025)

Map Date: 7/31/2020 FigureFigure 3. SiteSite Plan Plan 2019-025 Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Irvine Santa Ana Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project 2603 Main Street, Suite 400 Irvine, California 92614 Phone (949) 988-5815 Fax (949) 988-5820 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

2.3 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals

The following approvals and regulatory permits would be required for implementation of the Proposed Project:

• City of Santa Ana CIP No. 309095.04

2.4 Consultation with California Native American Tribe(s)

On December 12, 2019, the City of Santa Ana sent project notification letters to 16 California Native American tribal representatives, which had previously submitted general consultation request letters pursuant to 21080.3.1(d) of the Public Resources Code. A full list of the notified tribes is provided in Section 4.18 of this Initial Study. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation have requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1. Ultimately, the City and tribe have agreed to specific mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources. At this time, the consultation remains ongoing for further dialogue. A summary of the consultation process, including the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, is provided in Section 4.18 of this Initial Study. Documentation of the consultation is included in Appendix E.

Project Description 2-3 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Project Description 2-4 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AND DETERMINATION

3.1 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” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Hazards/Hazardous Materials Recreation

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation

Air Quality Land Use and Planning Tribal Cultural Resources

Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems

Cultural Resources Noise Wildfire

Energy Population and Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance

Geology and Soils Public Services

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Determination

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the 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 Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the 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 Project, nothing further is required.

Armando Fernandez, P.E. Date Senior Civil Engineer Water Resources Division

Environmental Factors and Determination 3-1 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Environmental Factors and Determination 3-2 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Aesthetics

4.1.1 Environmental Setting

Visual Character of the Project Site

The project site is located in unincorporated Orange County within the City of Santa Ana Sphere of Influence (Figure 1 and 2). The City is Santa Ana is largely built out with a few remaining open spaces. The visual character is defined by an established residential neighborhood with adjacent small commercial retail uses. Medford Avenue and Pasadena Street are adjoined by single-family residential dwellings.

State Scenic Highways

The California Scenic Highway Program protects and enhances the scenic beauty of California’s highways and adjacent corridors. A highway can be designated as scenic based on how much natural beauty can be seen by users of the highway, the quality of the scenic landscape, and if development impacts the enjoyment of the view. The project site is located approximately 0.1 miles west of State Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) and approximately one-mile northeast of Interstate 5 (I-5) (Santa Ana Freeway). Neither of these highways are designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans (Caltrans 2019). There are no County-designated scenic highways within the City of Santa Ana.

4.1.2 Aesthetics (I) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

vista?

The Proposed Project involves installing sewer mains, a water main, and laterals; and transferring existing residences and business from septic systems to the City’s sewer system. All public improvements would occur within the existing ROW of Medford Avenue, Pasadena Street, Deodar Street and 17th Street and would be located below ground surface level. Additionally, there are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project. No impact would occur.

Less than Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No 21099, would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-1 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

The Proposed Project would be located primarily within public ROW and residential areas approximately 0.1 miles west of SR-55 and approximately one-mile northeast of I-5. Neither of these highways are designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. The nearest State Scenic Highway to the project site is a portion of SR-91 which runs from SR-55 to east of the Anaheim city limit, located approximately 6 miles to the north (Caltrans 2019). No impact would occur.

Less than Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No 21099, would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly

accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

The Proposed Project is located in an urban developed area characterized by residential and commercial land uses. All proposed improvements would be located below ground or at ground level within existing paved roads. Once construction is complete project areas would be paved and returned to the pre-project condition. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not affect the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Because there are no designated scenic views in the vicinity, the Proposed Project would not conflict with zoning or scenic quality regulations. No impact would occur.

Less than Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No 21099, would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The Proposed Project would not require lighting or include sources of glare during construction or operation. No impact would occur.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.2.1 Environmental Setting

The land use designation for the project site is Public ROW and Suburban Residential (Orange County 2015). The areas surrounding the project site are zoned for Low-Density Residential, Suburban Residential,

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-2 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project and General Commercial (City of Santa Ana 2018). According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Orange County Important Farmland 2016, the project site is located on land designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (CDC 2016).

4.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources (II) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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?

According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the project site is located on land classified as Urban and Built-Up Land. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be located on land classified as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (CDC 2016). No impact would occur.

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,

or a Williamson Act contract?

The project site is not located on land zoned for agricultural use. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the project site is mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land and not an agricultural preserve subject to a Williamson Act contract (CDC 2016). The Proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as

defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-3 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

The project site is located on land designated for Public ROW and Suburban Residential (Orange County 2015). The project site is not located on land designated for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production. No impact would occur.

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of

forest land to non-forest use?

The project site is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production (Orange County 2015). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

The project site and surrounding properties are not currently designated for agriculture. The project site areas to the north, east, south, and west are located on land designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (CDC 2016). Development on the project site would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.3 Air Quality

4.3.1 Environmental Setting

The project area is located within Santa Ana. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) has divided California into regional air basins according to topographic features. Santa Ana and the project area are located in a region identified as the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB occupies the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. The air basin is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-4 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.

Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) [O3 precursor emissions include nitrogen oxide (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG)], carbon monoxide

(CO), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SoCAB region is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3,

PM10, and PM2.5.

The local air quality agency affecting the SoCAB is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which is charged with the responsibility of implementing air quality programs and ensuring that national and state ambient air quality standards are not exceeded and that air quality conditions are maintained in the SoCAB. In an attempt to achieve national and state ambient air quality standards and maintain air quality, the air district has completed the several air quality attainment plans and reports, which together constitute the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the portion of the SoCAB encompassing the Project.

4.3.2 Air Quality (III) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan?

As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the California Clean Air Act requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-5 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, CARB, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the USEPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest population growth forecasts. (SCAG’s latest population growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.) The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan.

According to the SCAQMD, in order to determine consistency with SCAQMD’s air quality planning two main criteria must be addressed.

Criterion 1:

With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.

a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations?

As shown in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2 below, the Proposed Project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds during construction. Operations of the Project would not result in the production of any on-site or off-site emissions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations and would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.

b) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?

As shown in Table 4.3-1, the Proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD regional thresholds for construction. Operations of the Project would not result in the production of any on-site or off-site emissions. Because the Project would result in less than significant regional emission impacts, it would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions.

Criterion 2:

With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD air quality planning efforts, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the SoCAB focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population and housing growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining Project consistency focuses on whether or not the Proposed Project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented its air quality planning documents. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2016 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-6 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the 2016 AQMP?

A project is consistent with regional air quality planning efforts in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the SCAQMD air quality plans. Generally, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions in Santa Ana. Specifically, SCAG’s Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) provides regional population forecasts for the region and SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. The Santa Ana General Plan is referenced by SCAG in order to assist forecasting future growth in Santa Ana.

The Project proposes to install sewer mains, water mains and laterals to existing residences and businesses. It does not involve the development of new housing or employment centers. As such, the Project would not be contributing to an increase in population, housing or employment growth. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the land use assumptions or exceed the population or job growth projections used by SCAQMD to develop the 2016 AQMP.

b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures?

In order to further reduce emissions, the Project would be required to comply with emission reduction measures promulgated by the SCAQMD, such as SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, which are directly applicable to construction projects. SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires fugitive dust sources to implement Best Available Control Measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. SCAQMD 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. As such, the Proposed Project meets this consistency criterion.

c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth by SCAQMD air quality planning efforts?

The AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Proposed Project would not be contributing to development density and therefore would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP.

In conclusion, the determination of 2016 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality. Once built, the Project would not be a source of operational air

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-7 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

pollution. The Proposed Project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. The Proposed Project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP.

For these reasons, no impact would occur.

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project

region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s individual emissions exceed its identified significance thresholds, the project would be cumulatively considerable. Projects that do not exceed significance thresholds would not be considered cumulative considerable.

Construction Emission Impacts

Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Proposed Project are summarized in Table 4.3-1. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Construction activities would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires taking reasonable precautions to prevent the emissions of fugitive dust, such as using water or chemicals, where possible, for control of dust during the clearing of land and other construction activities.

Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis)

Pollutant (pounds per day) Construction Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Construction in 2021 2.08 43.07 14.78 0.10 2.87 1.18

SCAQMD Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-8 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis)

Pollutant (pounds per day) Construction Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. Emissions estimates account for the site preparation of 0.48 acres and the paving of 0.48 acres.

As shown in Table 4.3-1, construction-generated emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. The SCAQMD’s pollutant significance thresholds were set at emission levels tied to the region’s attainment status. Therefore, since the project’s emissions do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, no exceedance of the ambient air quality standards would occur, and no health effects from project criteria pollutants would occur.

Localized Significance Thresholds

In addition to regional significance thresholds, the SCAQMD developed localized significance thresholds

(LSTs) for emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis protocol). In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific level proposed projects.

LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a Project site without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or state ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb 5 acres or less on a single day.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are single-family and multi-family residence located less than 20 feet (±6 meters). Notwithstanding, the SCAQMD Methodology explicitly states: “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters.” Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized in this analysis.

For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Saddleback Valley source receptor area (SRA 19) as this source receptor area includes the Project site. The Proposed Project would disturb approximately 0.48-acres total during construction. Thus, the LST threshold value for a 0.48- acre site was calculated using the information provided from the LST lookup tables and is presented in Table 4.3-2.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-9 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Table 4.3-2. Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions

Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Construction Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Demolition 15.32 12.84 0.72 0.67

Site Preparation 13.72 6.57 0.71 0.53

Trenching 8.21 10.54 0.45 0.43

Paving & Painting 8.23 8.89 0.44 0.41 SCAQMD Localized Emissions Threshold 82.16 339.72 1.56 1.04 Interpolated for 0.48 acres of daily disturbance Exceed Threshold? No No No No

Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs. Notes: The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on measures included in CalEEMod and as required by the SCAQMD through Rule 403. This includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied.

Table 4.3-2 shows that the emissions of localized pollutant resulting during Project implementation would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

Operational Emission Impacts

Operational emissions impacts are long-term air emissions impacts that are associated with any changes in permanent use of the Project site by on-site stationary and off-site mobile sources that substantially increase emissions. The Project proposes improvements to the underground sewer and water infrastructure within the existing right-of-way. The Project would not change the permanent use of the Project site or contribute to on or off-site emissions. No long-term operational emission impacts would occur as a result of the Project.

Localized Operational Significance Analysis

According to the SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operations of a proposed project only if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The Proposed Project does not include such uses. Therefore, in the case of the Proposed Project, the operational LST protocol is not applied.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-10 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations?

Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

Construction-Generated Air Contaminants

Construction-related activities would result in temporary, short-term Proposed Project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); soil hauling truck traffic; paving; and other miscellaneous activities. However, as shown in Table 1 the Project would not exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds. The portion of the SoCAB which encompasses the Project area is designated as a nonattainment area for federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3,

PM10, and PM2.5. Thus, existing these levels in the SoCAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods.

The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. Because the

Project would not involve construction activities that would result in O3 precursor emissions (ROG or NO3) in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds, the Project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to regional

O3 concentrations and the associated health impacts.

CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. The Project would not involve construction activities that would result in CO emissions in excess of the SCAQMD thresholds. Thus, the Project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant.

Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Particulate matter exposure has been linked to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing. For construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., DPM) were identified as a TAC by the CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (i.e., non-cancer chronic risk, short-term acute risk) and health impacts from other TACs. Based on the emission modeling conducted, the maximum onsite

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-11 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

construction-related daily emissions of exhaust PM2.5, considered a surrogate for DPM, would be 0.67 pounds per day during construction activities (see Attachment A). (PM2.5 exhaust is considered a surrogate for DPM because more than 90 percent of DPM is less than 1 microgram in diameter and therefore is a subset of particulate matter under 2.5 microns in diameter (i.e., PM2.5). Most PM2.5 derives from combustion, such as use of gasoline and diesel fuels by motor vehicles.) As with O3 and CO, the Project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 that would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. Accordingly, the Project’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are not expected to cause any increase in related regional health effects for these pollutants.

In summary, construction-related TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxics. Thus, the Project would not result in a potentially significant contribution to regional or localized concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants.

Furthermore, the Project has been evaluated against the SCAQMD’s LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative and can be used to assist lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific level of proposed projects. The SCAQMD Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative program seeks to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution. The Environmental Justice Program is divided into three categories, with the LST protocol promulgated under Category I: Further-Reduced Health Risk. As shown in Table 4.3-2, the emissions of pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Thus, the fact that onsite Project construction emissions would be generated at rates below the LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 demonstrates that the Project would likely not adversely impact nearby sensitive receptors.

Operational Air Contaminants

The Proposed Project involves 2,970 total linear feet of infrastructure improvements for the benefit of residences and businesses located in Santa Ana. It does not include the provision of new permanent stationary or mobile sources of emissions, and therefore, by its very nature, would not generate quantifiable air toxic emissions from Project operations.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots

It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Given the high traffic volume potential, areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. However, transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Furthermore, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-12 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project more stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined.

Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide in Los Angeles County can be used to demonstrate the potential for CO exceedances. The SCAQMD CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles County during the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood), Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood), Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood), and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority evaluated the level of service (LOS) in the vicinity of the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection and found it to be LOS E at peak morning traffic and LOS F at peak afternoon traffic (LOS E and F are the two least efficient traffic LOS ratings). Even with the inefficient LOS and volume of traffic, the CO analysis concluded that there was no violation of CO standards (SCAQMD 1992).

The Proposed Project would not generate any vehicle trips once construction is complete. As such, it would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day. There is no likelihood of the Project traffic exceeding CO values.

Less than Significant Potentially With Less than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-13 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

Construction

During construction, the Proposed Project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, these emissions are short term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources. Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area.

Operations

According to the SCAQMD, land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of obnoxious odorous emissions include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. No impact would occur.

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4.1 Environmental Setting

The Proposed Project is located in the Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue, Deodar Street, and 17th Street neighborhood within the City of Santa Ana (Figure 1 and 2). The City of Santa Ana, like the project area, is almost entirely built out. The only areas in the City with natural habitat are mainly located along the Santa Ana River or Santiago Creek, which are located more than four miles away from the project site.

A database search was completed of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFW 2019). The CNDDB search did not result in any records of listed or special-status plant or wildlife species directly on the project site. It should be noted that this database is not all inclusive, because species locations may not have been disclosed nor the site previously surveyed for biological resources.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-14 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.4.2 Biological Resources (IV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

As previously mentioned, the project site is located in a fully developed urban area in the Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue, Deodar Street, and 17th Street neighborhood within the City of Santa Ana. Proposed improvements would be below ground level and would be located along existing paved roads where there are no sensitive habitats. Ornamental vegetation located adjacent to the project site would not be affected by the Proposed Project. Due to the lack of habitat and the developed nature of the project area, no impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species are anticipated. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

The project area is in a fully developed area characterized by residential and commercial land uses. The project area does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

The project area is fully developed with streets and residential and commercial land uses. The project area does not support wetlands. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-15 September 2020 (2019-025) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact 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?

The project site is in an urban developed area supporting mostly non-native vegetation. The project site does not represent and is not crossed by a significant wildlife movement corridor, nor does it contain significant nursery sites for native species due to the level of development and the lack of permanent water on the site. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

The Proposed Project would be located within existing paved roadways, where there are no biological resources. Ornamental vegetation in the project area, such as street trees, would not be affected by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would comply with the City of Santa Ana’s tree planting, maintaining, and removal ordinance (Part II, Chapter 33, Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Works, Article VII - Regulation of the Planting, Maintenance, and Removal of Trees). The ordinance prohibits various activities that may damage the City’s street trees. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community

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

The Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) that covers Orange County is meant to protect habitat of candidate, sensitive, and special status species in Orange County. The NCCP has two subareas—the southern subarea and the central-coastal subarea—but the City of Santa Ana does not fall within either of these two subareas (CDFW 2013). Thus, the Proposed Project would not interfere with HCPs or NCCPs. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-16 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5.1 Environmental Setting

Cultural Resources

The analysis of cultural resources was based on a records and literature search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton on June 5, 2019 to identify previously recorded cultural resources within the project area and within a one-half-mile radius around the project area (ECORP 2019c; Appendix D). In addition, the California Historic Property Data File (HPDF) for Orange County (OHP 2012) was consulted for Santa Ana. The HPDF provides information about resources determined eligible for, or listed on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources. It also provides information on resources that are California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest.

The records search showed that a total of 6 cultural resources investigations have been conducted within the one-half-mile records search radius. The records search results show that 2 built environment cultural resources have been previously recorded within the one-half-mile records search radius: a Craftsman bungalow single family residence at 17391 E. Santa Clara Avenue (P30-161988) and Cavalry Church at 1010 N. Tustin Avenue (P30-177515). However, none of the previously recorded resources on file at the SCCIC are in or adjacent to the project area. No archaeological sites and no built environment resources have been recorded in the project area. The HPDF also lists hundreds of historic-period buildings and structures in Santa Ana. However, none of these are in the project area. Overall, the records search results show that the project area has a low potential for subsurface prehistoric and historic period archaeological material.

4.5.2 Cultural Resources (V) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Although there are hundreds of historic-period buildings and structures in Santa Ana, none of these are in the project area. The results of the records search indicated that no archaeological sites and no built environment resources have been recorded in the project area.

The Proposed Project would be located within a fully developed urbanized area of Orange County within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Santa Ana. Proposed improvements would be located below ground

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-17 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project level within existing paved streets, which have already been disturbed by previous development and construction of utilities and streets. As such, the Proposed Project would only result in ground disturbing activities in previously disturbed location. Previously disturbed areas have a low sensitivity for containing unknown historical resources.

Because there are no known historical resources within the project area and because the Proposed Project would be located within previously disturbed areas, no impact to historical resources are anticipated.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

The results of the records search and existing developed nature of the project area indicate that the archaeological sensitivity of the project area is low. As such, construction of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to encounter archaeological resources. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

No formal cemeteries are located in or near the project area. Most Native American human remains are found in prehistoric archaeological sites. The records search results show that the project area has a low potential for subsurface prehistoric and historic period archaeological material. No impacts to human remains are anticipated; however, if any are encountered during ground disturbing construction activities, existing regulations (§7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, §5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641) are in place which detail the actions that must be taken if such discoveries are made. No impact would occur.

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.6 Energy

4.6.1 Environmental Setting

Introduction

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-18 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Energy consumption is analyzed in this Initial Study due to the potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the Project. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) during both the construction and long-term operational phases.

Electricity/Natural Gas Services

Southern California Edison provides electrical services to Orange County through State-regulated public utility contracts. Southern California Edison, the largest subsidiary of Edison International, is the primary electricity supply company for much of Southern California. It provides 14 million people with electricity across a service territory of approximately 50,00 square miles.

The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas services to the Project area. Southern California Gas services approximately 21.6 million customers, spanning roughly 20,000 square miles of California.

Energy Consumption

Electricity use is measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh), and natural gas use is measured in therms. Vehicle fuel use is typically measured in gallons (e.g. of gasoline or diesel fuel), although energy use for electric vehicles is measured in kWh.

The electricity consumption associated with all residential uses in Orange County from 2013 to 2017 is shown in Table 4.6-1. As indicated, the demand has slightly decreased since 2013.

Table 4.6-1. Residential Electricity Consumption in Orange County 2013-2017 Year Residential Electricity Consumption (kilowatt hours)

2017 674,508,068

2016 666,055,969

2015 687,575,933

2014 702,753,981

2013 684,206,217

Source: ECDMS 2019

The natural gas consumption associated with all residential uses in Orange County from 2013 to 2017 is shown in Table 4.6-2. As indicated, the demand has slightly decreased since 2013.

Table 4.6-2. Residential Natural Gas Consumption in Orange County 2013-2017 Year Residential Natural Gas Consumption (therms)

2017 343,737,901

2016 337,827,012

2015 316,917,643

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-19 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Year Residential Natural Gas Consumption (therms)

2014 319,182,227

2013 398,302,918

Source: ECDMS 2019

Total automotive fuel consumption in Orange County from 2014 to 2018 is shown in Table 4.6-3. As shown, on-road consumption has decreased and off-road consumption has increased since 2015.

Table 4.6-3. Automotive Fuel Consumption in Orange County 2015-2019 Year On-Road Fuel Consumption (gallons) Off-Road Fuel Consumption (gallons)

2019 1,362,039,800 16,317,321

2018 1,384,981,472 15,785,665

2017 1,412,971,800 15,361,357

2016 1,425,043,591 14,946,222

2015 1,427,024,567 14,394,448

Source: CARB 2014

4.6.2 Energy (VI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or

unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

This impact analysis focuses on the two sources of energy that are relevant to the Proposed Project: electricity associated with the pumping of wastewater and the equipment fuel necessary for Project construction. Addressing energy impacts requires an agency to make a determination as to what constitutes a significant impact. There are no established thresholds of significance, statewide or locally, for what constitutes a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy for a proposed land use project. For the purpose of this analysis, the amount of electricity estimated to be consumed by the Project is quantified and compared to that consumed by residential land uses in Orange County. Similarly, the amount of fuel necessary for Project construction and is calculated and compared to that consumed in Orange County.

The analysis of electricity gas usage is based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) modeling conducted by ECORP Consulting (see Appendix B), which quantifies energy use for Project operations, coupled with the California Energy Commission’s Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California (2006). The amount of total construction-related fuel use was estimated using ratios

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-20 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project provided in the Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program, Version 2.1 (2016). Energy consumption associated with the Project is summarized in Table 4.6-4.

Table 4.6-4. Proposed Project Energy and Fuel Consumption

Energy Type Annual Energy Consumed Percentage Increase Countywide Electricity Consumption1 2,490 kilowatt-hours 0.00003% Vehicular Fuel Consumption • Project Construction2 18,030 gallons 0.0012% Source: 1Electricity consumption calculated by ECORP Consulting using CalEEMod 2016.3.2 and Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California (CEC 2006) ; 2Climate Registry 2016 Notes: The Project increases in electricity consumption are compared with all of the residential buildings in Orange County in 2018, the latest data available. Electricity consumption was calculated by converting the water use estimated by CalEEMod to kilowatt-hours. This conversion can be found in “Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California” [1.30308 Mgal (1,911 kwh/Mgal) = 2,490 kwh].

As shown in Table 4.6-4, the increase in electricity usage as a result of the Project would constitute a negligible increase of 0.00003 percent in the typical annual electricity consumption attributed to residential uses in Orange County. Due to the relatively low increase in electricity from the Project and the implementation of energy reducing strategies, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy.

The Project’s gasoline fuel consumption during the construction period is estimated to be 18,030 gallons of fuel, which would increase the annual construction-related gasoline fuel use in the county by 0.0012 percent during Project construction. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on local and regional energy supplies, especially over the long-term. No unusual Project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the state. Construction contractors would purchase their own gasoline and diesel fuel from local suppliers and would judiciously use fuel supplies to minimize costs due to waste and subsequently maximize profits. Additionally, construction equipment fleet turnover and increasingly stringent state and federal regulations on engine efficiency combined with state regulations limiting engine idling times and requiring recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during Project construction. For these reasons, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature.

For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significan No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated t Impact Impact

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for

renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-21 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

The Proposed Project is for the implementation of sewer and water service improvements within the City. It does not conflict with or obstruct a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7.1 Environmental Setting

Geomorphic Setting

The City of Santa Ana and the project site are located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges are a series of mountain ranges separated by long valleys formed from faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The topographic trend is similar to the Coast Ranges but the geology is more like the Sierra Nevada, with granitic rocks intruding the older metamorphic rocks (Group Delta 2019).

Regional Seismicity and Fault Zones

An “active fault,” according to California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, is a fault that has indicated surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. A fault that has not shown geologic evidence of surface displacement in the last 11,000 years is considered “inactive.” According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Seismic Safety Element, there are no active, potentially active, or inactive faults within the planning area (City of Santa Ana 1982). Additionally, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zone (CDC 2019).

Soils

Soil types on the project site were determined using the NRCS Web Soil Survey. Soils within the project site consist of Mocho loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19 and San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (NRCS 2019).

4.7.2 Geology and Soils (VII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause 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

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-22 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? i) The nearest fault to the project site is the El Modeno Fault located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the project site (CDC 2010). The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone (CDC 2019). No known faults traverse the project site or are located adjacent to the project site that may rupture during seismic activity. A less than significant impact would occur. ii) Just like most of southern California, in the event of an earthquake strong ground shaking is expected to occur on the project site. The Proposed Project does not propose the construction of habitable structures and therefore would not expose people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking greater than what currently exists. Sewer design and construction would comply with current building codes and standards which would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from strong ground-shaking. Impacts would be less than significant. iii) Liquefaction is a phenomenon where water-saturated granular soil loses shear strength during strong ground shaking produced by earthquakes. The loss of soil strength occurs when cyclic pore water pressure increases below the groundwater surface. Potential hazards due to liquefaction include the loss of bearing strength beneath structures, possibly causing foundation failure and/or significant settlements. The project site is not located within the liquefaction potential zone as shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, for the Orange Quadrangle (CDC 1998). The Proposed Project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic related ground failure including liquefaction. No impact would occur. iv) The Proposed Project is not located within an area designated as having a potential for earthquake- induced land sliding (CDC 1998). No impacts would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of

topsoil?

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-23 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Implementation of the Proposed Project would require ground-disturbing activities, such as grading, that could potentially result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, either through a waiver or through preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP would minimize soil erosion during construction. The Proposed Project’s grading plan would also ensure that the proposed earthwork is conducted in a manner that prevents or reduces the potential for soil erosion. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Strong ground shaking can cause settlement, lateral spreading, or subsidence by allowing sediment particles to become more tightly packed, thereby reducing pore space. The potential for a landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse at the project site is very low. The project site is relatively flat and does not have landslide potential. The Proposed Project would not construct habitable structures. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not contribute to or expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects associates with on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with the findings and recommendations included in the project’s geotechnical report (AESCO 2019). Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),

creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

Expansive soils generally result from specific clay minerals that have the capacity to shrink or swell in response to changes in moisture content. As previously stated soils within the project area are generally sandy soils. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, soils within the project site consist of Mocho loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19 and San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (NRCS 2019). Mocho Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes has a low to moderate shrink swell potential. San Emigdio fine sandy loam, o to 2 percent slopes has a low shrink swell potential (NRCS 1978). Additionally, the Proposed Project does not propose any habitable structures; therefore, it would not create a substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property. The Proposed Project

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-24 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project would be constructed in accordance with the findings and recommendations included in the project’s geotechnical report (AESCO 2019). Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water

disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

The Proposed Project would install sewer mains, a water main, and laterals and transfer existing residences and business from septic systems to the City’s sewer system in Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue, Deodar Street, and 17th Street. The Proposed Project would abandon approximately 32 existing septic tanks and install the private side connection to the public sewer main to serve these properties. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

According to the Paleontology General Areas of Sensitivity Map for Orange County, no areas within the project vicinity contain sensitive paleontological (Orange County 2013). However, the project site is situated on Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf/sa) dating to the Holocene and Late Pleistocene geologic periods (Morton and Miller 2006). This alluvium is composed of sediments derived from the San Bernardino Mountains via the Santa Ana River and from the western Santa Ana Mountains via Santiago Creek. Therefore, excavations in areas containing Pleistocene Alluvium deposits have the potential to uncover fossil vertebrate specimens.

Excavation activities associated with sewer infrastructure are anticipated to disturb native soils and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unique paleontological resources. The project would excavate to a depth of approximately 8 feet, which is likely deeper than previous disturbances because the project site lacks sewer infrastructure. In the event of an unexpected disturbance, implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 below would ensure that potential impacts on paleontological resources or unique geological features would be less than significant.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-25 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

evaluation of the site. The qualified paleontological professional will evaluate the significance of the find and recommend appropriate measures for the disposition of the site (e.g. fossil recovery, curation, data recovery, and/or monitoring). Construction activities may continue on other parts of the construction site while evaluation and treatment of the paleontological resource takes place.

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8.1 Environmental Setting

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land use changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons, creates a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface, preventing its escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect, human activities have accelerated the generation of GHGs beyond natural levels. The overabundance of GHGs in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has the potential to severely impact the earth’s climate system.

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH4 traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

The local air quality agency regulating the SoCAB is the SCAQMD, the regional air pollution control officer for the basin. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in CEQA documents, SCAQMD staff is convening an ongoing GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. Members of the working group include government agencies implementing CEQA and representatives from various stakeholder groups that provide input to SCAQMD staff on developing the significance thresholds. On October 8, 2008, the SCAQMD released the Draft AQMD Staff CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds.

On September 28, 2010, SCAQMD Working Group Meeting #15 provided further guidance, including an interim screening level numeric “bright‐line” threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually and an efficiency‐based threshold of 4.8 metric tons of CO2e per service population (defined as the people that work, study, live, patronize and/or congregate on the Project site) per year in 2020 and 3.0 metric tons of

CO2e per service population per year in 2035. The SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present a finalized version of these thresholds to the governing board. The SCAQMD has also adopted Rules 2700, 2701, and 2702 that address GHG reductions; however, these rules are currently applicable only to boilers and process heaters, forestry, and manure management projects.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-26 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (VIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

GHG emissions associated with the Project would be emitted during the combustion of fossil fuels during short-term construction activities as well as the pumping of wastewater during on-going operations.

Construction-Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 4.8-1 illustrates the specific construction-generated GHG emissions that would result from construction of the Project.

Table 4.8-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)

Construction in 2021 183

Total 183 Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Attachment B for Model Data Outputs. Notes Emissions estimates account for the site preparation of 0.48 acres and the paving of 0.48 acres.

As shown in Table 4.8-1, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 183 metric tons of CO2e over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions (see Table 4.8-2).

Operational-Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Operations of the Proposed Project would result in GHG emissions, predominantly associated with the pumping of wastewater through sewer lines. Long-term operational GHG emissions attributed to the Project are identified in Table 4.8-2 and compared to SCAQMD’s numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually.

Table 4.8-2. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)

Construction Emissions (amortized over the 30-year life of the Project) 6

Water & Wastewater Pumping Emissions 9

Total Emissions 15

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-27 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Table 4.8-2. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)

SCAQMD Threshold 3,000

Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Attachment B for Model Data Outputs.

As shown in Table 4.8-2, operational-generated emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually. SCAQMD thresholds were developed based on substantial evidence that such thresholds represent quantitative levels of GHG emissions, compliance with which means that the environmental impact of the GHG emissions will normally not be cumulatively considerable under CEQA. These thresholds were developed as part of the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. The working group was formed to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the state OPR, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SoCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the basin, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

The City of Santa Ana CAP is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the City’s boundaries, presents current and future emission estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents strategies, policies and actions to reduce emissions form the energy, transportation, land use, water use, and waste sectors. The GHG reduction strategies in the CAP build on inventory results and key opportunities prioritized by the City staff and members of the public. The CAP consists of strategies that identify steps the City will take to support reductions in GHG emissions. The City will achieve these reductions in GHG emissions through a mix of voluntary programs and new strategic standards. All standards presented in the CAP respond to the needs of development through achieving more efficient and sustainable resources.

Both the existing and the projected GHG inventories in the CAP were derived based on the land use designations and associated designations defined in the City of Santa Ana General Plan. The Proposed Project will be in the public right-of-way and is intended to serve existing and planned land uses designated in the General Plan as single-family residential and two-family residential. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the land use assumptions or exceed the population or job growth projections used by the County to develop the CAP.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-28 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

The Project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs. No impact would occur.

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was completed for the Proposed Project by Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta 2019). The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to review, evaluate, and document present and past land uses and practices, and visually examine project site conditions in order to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). A REC is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of release to the environment, or; (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. The Phase I ESA results are summarized below.

4.9.1 Environmental Setting

The project site is located within public ROW along Deodar Street between 17th street to the south and approximately 900 feet (ft) south of Avalon Lane; along Medford Avenue; and along Pasadena Street in the City of Santa Ana, California. The project site located approximately 0.1 miles west of State Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) and approximately one-mile northeast of Interstate 5 (I-5) (Santa Ana Freeway). Areas adjacent to the project site consist of vacant land and commercial and multi-family dwellings to the west of Ponderosa Street. Areas adjacent to Medford Avenue and Pasadena Street consist of single-family residential dwellings.

Previous land uses of the project site were determined using available historical resources. Photographs and historical topographic maps dating between 1896 and 2012 were reviewed for the purpose of the Phase I ESA. Development on the project site from at least 1896 to 1902 was undetermined due to the scale of the topographic maps during this period; the project site consisted of agricultural orchards from at least 1928 to 1952; the project site was developed with public roads consisting of Ponderosa Street, Medford Avenue, and Pasadena Street in the present configuration from at least 1963 to 2012 (Group Delta 2019).

4.9.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (IX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-29 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Some hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, would be used at the project site during construction. The transport of hazardous materials by truck is regulated by federal safety standards under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The use of such materials for the construction of the Proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

During construction some hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, would be used. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), listing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction pollutants and products from violating any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements would be prepared for the Proposed Project. The release of any spills would be prevented through the implementation of BMPs listed in the SWPPP. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste

within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school to the project site is Plumfield Preschool and Kindergarten at 2112 E. Santa Clara Avenue, located approximately 0.30 miles northwest of the project site. Please see the answer to question VII. b) above. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

The Phase I ESA included a review of the State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-30 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

The purpose of these searches was to identify any evidence of unauthorized releases of hazardous materials to the surface, subsurface soil, and groundwater; and to identify the presence of underground storage tanks (USTs), leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), site clean-ups, disposal sites, wells, and information related to hazardous materials and/or waste. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site was not identified on the EnviroStor or GeoTracker databases and no RECs were identified as a result of this review. A less than significant impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use

airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The project site is located approximately 6 miles north of John Wayne Airport and is not within a John Wayne Airport Impact Zone (City of Santa Ana 2009). The Proposed Project would involve infrastructure improvements within existing public ROW and would not include the construction of habitable structures or other structures that could pose a safety hazard. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The City of Santa Ana maintains and Emergency Services Plan that provides direction and guidance for officials and citizens in the event of emergency (City of Santa Ana 1982). Implementation of the Proposed Project would require construction to occur within public ROW in Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue, Deodar Street, and 17th Street. Construction and traffic associated with the Proposed Project has the potential to interfere with emergency response access to areas near the project site. Impact to emergency access would be less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-31 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

The Proposed Project is located in a developed area of the City of Santa Ana; there are no wildlands in the vicinity. Additionally, the Proposed Project is not located on land designated as a state or local fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2019). No impact would occur.

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures

HAZ-1: Prior to construction, the City of Santa Ana (or its contractor) shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan to ensure proper access to residences and businesses in the area by emergency vehicles during construction and to maintain traffic flow. The Traffic Control Plan shall be approved by the City of Santa Ana prior to any lane closures.

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10.1 Hydrology and Water Quality (X) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

Potential water quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project include short-term construction- related erosion/sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities and construction-related hazardous material discharge. Impacts associated with construction-related water quality impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level below significance through implementation of standard construction BMPs. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge

such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

The Proposed Project would be located entirely within existing paved streets. As such, there would be no substantial increase in impermeable surfaces in the project area compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, the Proposed Project does not require the withdrawal of groundwater. No impacts to groundwater supplies or recharge are anticipated.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-32 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;

ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;

iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

iv) impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Construction of the Proposed Project would require ground disturbing activities, including excavation, grading, and paving. These activities have the potential to result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Construction impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of standard construction BMPs. Once construction has completed project areas would be paved and returned to their pre-project condition.

ii) The Proposed Project would be located along existing paved streets. All improvements are below ground and once project construction is completed the project areas would be paved and returned to their pre-project conditions. As such, no changes to the volume of runoff from the project area are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. No impact would occur.

iii) The Proposed Project is the installation of sewer mains and laterals along existing paved streets. All improvements are below ground surface and project areas would be paved and returned to their pre-project conditions. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to change the quality and quantity of runoff water in the project area. Post-project stormwater drainage conditions would be the same as existing conditions. No impact would occur.

iv) As previously mentioned all project improvements would be below ground surface along existing paved streets. Once construction is completed all project areas would be paved and returned to their pre-project conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-33 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk

release of pollutants due to project inundation?

The project site is not within a flood hazard area (FEMA 2019). Additionally, the project site is located approximately 12 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean; therefore, tsunamis are not a risk for the project area. The project area is also not located near any reservoirs or lakes that could produces seiches. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

The Proposed Project would convert existing residences and commercial properties from septic systems to the City’s sewer system. This change would result in beneficial impacts to water quality in the project area. The Proposed Project would not interfere with any groundwater management plan. No impact would occur.

4.10.2 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.11.1 Environmental Setting

The project site is located in the Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue, and Deodar Street neighborhood within the City of Santa. Surrounding land uses are described in Table 1-1 in Section 1.3, Surrounding Land Uses/Environmental Setting, of this Initial Study.

4.11.2 Land Use and Planning (XI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Physically divide an established community?

The Proposed Project consists of infrastructure improvements within public ROW. Areas within the public ROW disturbed by the Proposed Project would be returned to pre-construction conditions upon

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-34 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project completion of the Proposed Project. Due to the nature of the Proposed Project it would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or

regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The Proposed Project consists of infrastructure improvements within public ROW; as such, it would not conflict with any applicable land use plans or policies; no impact would occur.

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.12 Mineral Resources

4.12.1 Environmental Setting

At present, there are no mineral extraction activities in the City of Santa Ana. Regionally significant resources are found farther north of the City, along the Santa Ana River within the cities of Orange and Anaheim. Santiago Creek also provides aggregate resources in areas north of the City of Santa Ana. However, there are no Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA) areas designated within the City (City of Santa Ana 2010).

4.12.2 Mineral Resources (XII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

The project area is fully developed and characterized by residential and commercial land uses. Proposed improvements would occur within existing paved roads. The project site is not located on a known important mineral resource recovery site. No impacts are anticipated.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-35 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact 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?

According to the Santa Ana General Plan, the planning area does not have significant mineral resources and there are no mineral extraction activities in the City. Regionally significant resources are found farther north of the City, along the Santa Ana River within the cities of Orange and Anaheim. Santiago Creek also provides aggregate resources in areas north of the City of Santa Ana. There are no Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA) areas designated within the City (City of Santa Ana 2010). No impact would occur.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.13 Noise

4.13.1 Environmental Setting

Noise Fundamentals

Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpected. The selection of a proper noise descriptor for a specific source is dependent on the spatial and temporal distribution, duration, and fluctuation of the noise. The noise descriptors most often encountered when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include the average hourly noise level (in Leq) and the average daily noise levels/community noise equivalent level (in Ldn/CNEL).

Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources, such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Mobile transportation sources, such as highways, and hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3.0 decibels (dBA) per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate of approximately 6.0 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source.

Sound levels can be reduced by placing barriers between the noise source and the receiver. In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the “line of sight” between the source and the receiver. Buildings, concrete walls, and berms can all act as effective noise barriers. Wooden fences or broad areas of dense foliage can also reduce noise but are less effective than solid barriers.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-36 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.13.2 Noise (XIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards

established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Construction Noise Impacts

Section 18-314, Special Provisions, of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code prohibits construction between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or Saturday, or any time on Sunday or federal holidays but does not promulgate a numeric threshold pertaining to the noise associated with construction. This is due to the fact that construction noise is temporary, short term, intermittent in nature, and would cease on completion of the Project. Furthermore, the City of Santa Ana is a developing urban community and construction noise is generally accepted as a reality within the urban environment. Additionally, construction would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at one point.

To estimate the worst-case onsite construction noise levels that may occur at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity, the construction equipment noise levels were calculated using the Roadway Noise Construction Model for the demolition, site preparation, trenching, paving and painting and compared against the construction‐related noise level threshold established in the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared in 1998 by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the US Department of Health and Human Services,

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-37 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The NIOSH construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day; for every 3-dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This reduction results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than 4 hours per day, 92 dBA for more than 1 hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby existing and future planned sensitive receptors.

The anticipated short-term construction noise levels generated for the necessary equipment is presented in Table 4.13-1. Consistent with FTA recommendations for calculating construction noise, construction noise was measured from the center of the Project site (FTA 2018). As previously stated, the nearest noise sensitive land uses to the Project site are residences located approximately 20 feet distant.

Table 4.13-1. Onsite Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels by Receptor Distance and Construction Equipment

Estimated Exterior Construction Equipment Construction Noise Level Noise Standard Exceeds Standards? @ Closest Residence (dBA Leq)

Demolition

Scrapers(1) 87.6 85 Yes

Rubber Tired Dozers (1) 85.6 85 Yes

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 88.0 85 Yes (1)

Combined Demolition 91.1 85 Yes Equipment

Site Preparation

Scrapers (1) 87.6 85 Yes

Graders (1) 89.0 85 Yes

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 88.0 85 Yes (1)

Combined Site Preparation 93.0 85 Yes Equipment

Trenching

Dumpers/Tenders (1) 80.4 85 No

Excavators (1) 84.7 85 No

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 88.0(each) 85 Yes (2)

Concrete/Industrial Saws (1) 90.5 85 Yes

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-38 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Table 4.13-1. Onsite Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels by Receptor Distance and Construction Equipment

Estimated Exterior Construction Equipment Construction Noise Level Noise Standard Exceeds Standards? @ Closest Residence (dBA Leq)

Combined Trenching 94.5 85 Yes Equipment

Paving & Painting

Cement and Mortar Mixers (4) 82.6 (each) 85 No

Pavers (1) 82.2 85 No

Air Compressors (1) 81.6 85 No

Rollers (1) 81.0 85 No

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(1) 88.0 85 Yes

Combined Paving & Painting 92.6 85 Yes Equipment Source: Construction noise levels were calculated by ECORP Consulting using the FHWA Roadway Noise Construction Model (FHWA 2006). Refer to Attachment B for Model Data Outputs. Notes: Construction equipment used during construction derived from CalEEMod 2016.3.2.

Leq = The equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

As shown in Table 4.13-1, a majority of the individual pieces of construction equipment and all cumulative construction equipment would exceed the NIOSH noise threshold of 85 dBA at the adjacent sensitive receptors. It is recommended that the implementation of temporary noise barriers be used during Project construction. Noise barriers or enclosures can provide a sound reduction of 35 dBA or greater (WEAL 2000). To be effective, a noise enclosure/barrier must physically fit in the available space, must completely break the line of sight between the noise source and the receptors, must be free of degrading holes or gaps, and must not be flanked by nearby reflective surfaces. Noise barriers must be sizable enough to cover the entire noise source and extend lengthwise and vertically as far as feasibly possible to be most effective. The limiting factor for a noise barrier is not the component of noise transmitted through the material, but rather the amount of noise flanking around and over the barrier. In the case of Project construction, an enclosure/barrier would only be necessary at the area of the construction site where noise producing activities are being performed.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-39 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project construction activities would not expose persons to and generate noise levels in excess of County standards with implementation of NOI-1 and NOI-2.

Operational Noise Impact

The Proposed Project consists of sewer and water infrastructure improvements. It would not be a source of mobile or stationary noise sources and thus would not be a source of operational noise. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Result in generation of excessive groundborne

vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Construction Vibration Impacts

Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks. It is not anticipated that pile drivers would be necessary during Project construction. Vibration decreases rapidly with distance and it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to sensitive receptors. Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment are summarized in Table 4.13-2.

Table 4.13-2. Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment at 20 Feet

Equipment Type Peak Particle Velocity at 20 Feet (inches per second)

Large Bulldozer 0.124

Caisson Drilling 0.124

Loaded Trucks 0.106

Rock Breaker 0.115

Jackhammer 0.049

Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.004 Source: FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-40 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

It is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. The nearest structures of concern to the construction site are residential structures located less than 20 feet away on Pasadena Avenue, Medford Avenue and Deodar Street. Based on the vibration levels presented in Table 4.13-2, ground vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment would not be anticipated to exceed approximately 0.124 inches per second peak particle velocity at 20 feet. Therefore, vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest adjacent residences would be expected to be below the 0.2 inch per second peak particle velocity threshold. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts

Project operations would not include the use of any stationary equipment that would result in excessive groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, the Project would result in no groundborne vibration impacts during operations. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The project site is located approximately 6 miles north of the John Wayne International Airport. Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise. There is no impact.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures

NOI-1: The Project construction and improvement plans will include the following requirements for construction activities:

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-41 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

• A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall be posted at the Project construction site providing a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. This sign shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities. In conjunction with this required posting, a noise disturbance coordinator will be identified to address construction noise concerns received. The coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City. All signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator.

• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.

• Per Section 18-314 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction shall be prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or Saturday, or any time on Sunday or federal holidays.

Implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would substantially reduce construction- generated noise levels. As previously described, noise barriers or enclosures such as that recommended in mitigation measure NOI-2 can provide a sound reduction 35 dBA or greater (WEAL 2000), which would be a reduction robust enough to maintain construction noise levels less than 85 dBA. Temporary noise barriers can consist of a solid plywood fence and/or flexible sound curtains, such as an 18-ounce tarp or a 2-inch-thick fiberglass blanket attached to chain link fencing. Therefore, Project construction activities would not expose persons to and generate noise levels in excess of County standards with implementation of NOI-1 and NOI-2.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-42 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.14 Population and Housing

4.14.1 Population and Housing (XIV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The Proposed Project would install a sewer system and connect to existing properties with septic systems. The new sewer and water infrastructure would accommodate the existing residences and would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The Proposed Project does not include the removal or disturbance of existing housing; therefore, it would not displace people. The sewer and water pipelines would be installed along paved roadways. No impact to housing would occur.

4.14.2 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-43 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.15 Public Services

4.15.1 Public Services (XV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Would the Project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) 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:

Fire Protection?

Police Protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other Public Facilities?

The Proposed Project would not create a substantial new fire or public safety hazard. The Proposed Project would also not generate new employment or population growth; therefore, no increase in the demand for schools, parks, or other public facilities would occur. No impacts are anticipated.

4.15.2 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.16 Recreation

4.16.1 Recreation (XVI) Materials Checklist

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such

that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-44 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

The nearest neighborhood parks are Portola Park, Mabury Park and Cabrillo Park, all of which are just over one mile away from the project site. No increase in demand, or use of, existing parks or recreational facilities would result from the implementation of the Proposed Project because no population growth would occur. The Proposed Project consists of the construction of the new sewer systems that would require annual routine maintenance. Routine maintenance of project facilities would be managed by existing City public works staff and would not result in an increase in employment. Therefore, no increase in demand or use of existing parks or recreational facilities would result from the implementation of the Proposed Project. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational

facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The Proposed Project will transition the neighborhood from a septic to sewer system and would not affect recreational facilities. As such, the Proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impact would occur.

4.16.2 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.17 Transportation

4.17.1 Transportation (XVII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system,

including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

Construction Impacts

The Proposed Project would generate short-term construction related vehicle trips. However, traffic generated during construction of the Proposed Project would be temporary and would not conflict with the City of Santa Ana’s Circulation Element. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-45 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Operational Impacts

Operational impacts are anticipated to be similar to existing conditions because the Proposed Project would continue the existing use as a public ROW once construction is complete. No operational impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines

section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) details the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to assess the significance of transportation impacts. As detailed in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (c), a lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide. As of the preparation of this document (September 2020), VMT analysis has not been adopted by the City of Santa Ana, and therefore this question does not apply to the Proposed Project.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The Proposed Project would install sewer mains, a water main, and laterals below the ground along existing paved streets. Once construction ends the project area would be returned to its pre-project condition. No modifications to the street configurations or design are proposed. Improvements have been designed by a registered civil engineer to meet the City of Santa Ana’s development standards. No impact would occur.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Construction of the Proposed Project would require construction activities to occur within public ROW along 17th Street, Deodar Street, Pasadena Avenue, and Medford Avenue. This would result in temporary construction truck traffic which has the potential to interfere with emergency response access to areas near the project site. Impacts associates with inadequate emergency access would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-46 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.17.2 Mitigation Measures

HAZ-1 is listed in Section 4.9.3 of this Initial Study.

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18.1 Regulatory Setting

Assembly Bill 52

Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to those California Native American tribes that requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.

Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.

Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or

b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or

c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a historical resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a historical resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their tribal cultural resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies provide tribes that requested notification an opportunity to consult at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-47 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is used to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.

4.18.2 Summary of AB 52 Consultation

On December 12, 2019, the City of Santa Ana sent project notification letters to the following California Native American tribes, which had previously submitted general consultation request letters pursuant to 21080.3.1(d) of the Public Resources Code:

• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

• Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe

• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation

• Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation

• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians

• Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council

• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians

• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Berlardes

• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Romero

• La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians

• Pala Band of Mission Indians

• Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians

• Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians

• Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians

• San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians

• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians

Each recipient was provided a brief description of the project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation. The 30-day response period concluded on January 11, 2020.

As a result of the initial notification letters, the City of Santa Ana received the following responses:

• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation: Responded by letter indicating the Proposed Project lies within their ancestral tribal territory and accepting the consultation invitation.

No response was received from the other contacted California Native American tribes.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-48 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

The City initiated consultation and scheduled a conference call for May 13, 2020. During the consultation, the tribe provided historical information regarding the site being included in their ancestral lands. The City provided a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to the tribe on May 18, 2020 in which the City agreed to work cooperatively in good faith and mutual trust. Ultimately, the tribe sent an email to the City on June 4, 2020 with a list of mitigation measures and the City and tribe have agreed to specific mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources. At this time, the consultation remains ongoing for further dialogue. Documentation of the consultation is included in Appendix E.

4.18.3 Tribal Cultural Resources (XVIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or

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

i-ii) While there are no known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) in the project footprint, ground- disturbing activities have the potential to result in the discovery of, or inadvertent damage to, archaeological contexts and human remains, and this possibility cannot be eliminated. Consequently, there is a potential for significant impacts on TCRs. Implementation Mitigation TCR-1 through TCR-7 would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-49 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.18.4 Mitigation Measures

TCR-3: Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-50 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-51 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19.1 Utilities and Service Systems (XIX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural

gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The Proposed Project is the construction of sewer facilities which would transfer approximately 32 existing residences and businesses from septic systems to the City’s sewer system. The volume of additional wastewater that would enter the sewer system from these residential and commercial properties is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of the Orange County Sanitation District. As such, no new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities would be required. The environmental effects from constructing the proposed sewer improvements are described in this Initial Study. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-52 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future

development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

The Proposed Project is a sewer construction project, which would only require water during construction for compaction and dust control purposes. During operation the Proposed Project would not require water. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

The City’s sewer system connects to the Orange County Sanitation District, which provides wastewater treatment. The addition of 32 residential and commercial properties would not generate an increase of volume that would exceed the wastewater treatment capacity of the Orange County Sanitation District. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local

infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

Minimal waste would be generated by the Proposed Project during construction. During operation the Proposed Project would not generate solid waste. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-53 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Waste generated by the Proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No impact would occur.

4.19.2 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.20 Wildfire

4.20.1 Environmental Setting

The State Responsibility Area (SRA) is the area in the state where the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The SRA covers 31 million acres to which the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services. According to CAL FIRE, the project site is located within an Unincorporated Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (CAL FIRE 2019). While the project site is exposed to strong Santa Ana winds, the nearest SRA hazardous zone is located at Loma Ridge Park, which is nearly 10 miles away from the project site. The project site is located in a highly urbanized setting and is not within a hazardous zone.

4.20.2 Wildfire (XX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

If located in or near state responsibility areas or Less than Potentially Significant with Less than lands classified as very high fire hazard severity Significant Mitigation Significant No zones, would the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The project site is not located within or near a very high fire hazard severity zone and is not expected to impact the City’s emergency response plan. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-54 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

The Proposed Project is not expected to create or exacerbate wildfire risk or accompanying pollutants. The Proposed Project would not be located within or near a very high fire hazard severity zone. No impact would occur.

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or

other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

The Proposed Project does not require installation of infrastructure that may exacerbate wildfire risk or substantially impact the environment. No impact would occur.

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or

landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

The project site resides in a flat neighborhood without nearby hills. The site is located in a highly urbanized area with little susceptibility to a devastating wildfire. Flooding and landslides are not anticipated to occur because of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes. No impact would occur.

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-55 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.21.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance (XXI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Does the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or

animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Impacts to biological and cultural resources are discussed in the respective sections of this Initial Study. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Does the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) 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)?

Potentially significant impacts from the Proposed Project identified in this Initial Study would occur during construction and would be mitigated to a less than significant level. No operational significant impacts were identified. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in cumulative considerable impacts.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-56 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

Less than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Does the Project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures listed in this Initial Study.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion 4-57 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

SECTION 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.1 City of Santa Ana

Lead Agency

Armando Fernandez, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer

5.2 ECORP Consulting, Inc.

CEQA Documentation/Air Quality/Biological Resources/Cultural Resources/Greenhouse Gas/Noise

Tom Holm, AICP, Project Manager Alfredo Aguirre, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner Jerry Aguirre, Associate Environmental Planner Lindsay Liegler, Associate Environmental Planner Rosey Worden, Air Quality/GHG/Noise Analyst Seth Myers, Senior Air Quality/GHG/Noise Analyst

List of Preparers 5-1 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

List of Preparers 5-2 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

SECTION 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

AESCO

2019 Geotechnical Report Proposed Septic to Sewer Conversion Project Pasadena Street and Medford Avenue Santa Ana, California AESCO Project No. 20190415-F2857. August 15, 2019.

[CDC] California Department of Conservation

2010 Fault Activity Map of California 2010.

2016 Orange County Important Farmland 2016. Available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/ora14.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2019.

2019 Map Data Layer Viewer. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/. Accessed on May 29. 2019.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife

2013 Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/status/OrangeCoastal/. Accessed May 24, 2019.

2019 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Available at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed on May 24, 2019.

[Caltrans] California Department of Transportation

2004 Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.

2019 California Department of Transportation Officially Designated Scenic Highways for Riverside County. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed on May 23, 2019.

CAL FIRE

2019 CAL FIRE State Responsibility Area Viewer. Available at http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sraviewer_launch. Accessed May 23, 2019.

[ECORP] ECORP Consulting, Inc.

2019a Santa Ana Septic to Sewer – Emissions Technical Memorandum. May 7, 2019.

2019b Santa Ana Septic to Sewer – Noise Technical Memorandum. May 7, 2019.

2019c Santa Ana Septic to Sewer – Cultural Records Search. June 5, 2019.

[FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency

Bibliography 6-1 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

2019 FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home#. Accessed May 30, 2019.

[FHWA] Federal Highway Administration

2006 Roadway Construction Noise Model.

[FTA] Federal Transit Administration

2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

[Group Delta] Group Delta Consultants, Inc.

2019 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the City of Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Project. April 11, 2019.

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service

1978 Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California.

2019 Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed on May 29, 2019.

Morton, Douglas M. and Fred K. Miller

2006 Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California. Available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1217/. Accessed on July 31, 2019.

Orange County

2013 Paleontology (General Areas of Sensitivity). December 2013. Available at https://www.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=8621. Accessed on July 29, 2019.

2015 County of Orange Land Use Element Map. Available at https://www.ocgov.com/gov/pw/cd/planning/generalplan2005.asp. Accessed May 20, 2019.

2016 County of Orange Zoning Map. Available at http://www.ocpublicworks.com/ds/planning/codes. Accessed May 20, 2019.

Santa Ana, City of

1982 City of Santa Ana General Plan. Adopted September 20, 1982.

2009 City of Santa Ana General Plan Airport Environs Element. Adopted February 11, 2009.

2010 Land Use Element. Available at https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/current-generalplan. Accessed May 23, 2019.

Bibliography 6-2 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

2018 Land Use Plan. Available at https://www.santa-ana.org/pb/planning-division. Accessed May 20, 2019.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service

2019 Wetlands Mapper. Available at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ Wetlands-Mapper.html. Accessed May 24, 2019.

Bibliography 6-3 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Bibliography 6-4 September 2020 (2019-025)

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

SECTION 7.0 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Project Site Photos

Appendix B – Emissions Technical Memorandum

Appendix C – Noise Technical Memorandum

Appendix D – Cultural Records Search

Appendix E – Tribal Resources Consultation

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

APPENDIX A

Project Site Photos

Attachment A – Project Site Photos

Photo 1. Medford Street (facing west)

Photo 2. Medford Street (facing east)

Photo 3. Ponderosa Street and Pasadena Street intersection

Photo 4. Pasadena Street (facing north)

Photo 5. Ponderosa Street (facing north)

Photo 6. Ponderosa Street (facing south) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

APPENDIX B

Emissions Technical Memorandum

August 2020

Miguel Hernandez Huitt‐Zollars, Inc. 430 Exchange, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602

RE: Santa Ana Septic to Sewer – Emissions Technical Memorandum

Dear Mr. Hernandez: ECORP Consulting, Inc. has conducted an Emissions Technical Memorandum for the proposed Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Project (Project) located in City of Santa Ana, California. The purpose of this memorandum is to assess any potential impacts to air quality and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this technical memorandum is to assess the Project’s potential air quality and GHG impacts within the Project area. The memorandum will compare the Project’s emissions to the significant thresholds identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution control officer with jurisdiction over the area. Air Quality and GHG impacts are assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) and the SCAQMD. Where quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operation of a variety of land use projects.

PROJECT LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The Project site is located in the City of Santa Ana (City), where it encompasses 2,970 linear feet on Medford Avenue, Pasadena Street, Deodar Street and 17th Street. The entire Project site is located in the public right‐of‐way. The site is generally bound by single‐family residences on Medford Avenue, Pasadena Street and Deodar Street, while retail uses, multi‐family residence and undeveloped land surround Ponderosa Street and 17th Street. The Project proposes to install 670 linear feet of sewer mains and lateral connecters to transfer existing residences and businesses currently employing the use of septic systems to the City’s sewer systems. Additionally, the Project would replace 2,300 linear feet of water main and laterals and transfer 50 properties from the City of Tustin water service to the City of Santa Ana.

Air Quality

Environmental Setting

Santa Ana is located within Orange County. CARB has divided California into regional air basins according to topographic features. Orange County and the site area are located in a region identified as the South

Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB includes the non‐desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. The air basin is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter (SCAQMD 1993). Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O3)

(precursor O3 emissions include nitrogen oxide (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG)), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SoCAB region is designated as a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM10 and PM2.5 as well as being in a nonattainment area for federal standards of O3 and PM2.5.

Regulatory Setting

The local air quality agency affecting the SoCAB is the SCAQMD, which is charged with the responsibility of implementing air quality programs and ensuring that national and state ambient air quality standards are not exceeded and that air quality conditions are maintained in the SoCAB. In an attempt to achieve national and state ambient air quality standards and maintain air quality, the air district has completed the several air quality attainment plans and reports, which together constitute the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SCAQMD has also adopted various rules and regulations for the control of stationary and area sources of emissions, including Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce course particulate matter

(PM10) emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 1401 requires new source review of any new, relocated, ormodified permit units that emit toxic air contaminants. The rule establishes allowable risks for permit units requiring permits.

AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION

Would the Project conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market‐ based programs. Similarly, under state law, the California Clean Air Act requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

As previously mentioned, the Project site is located within the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. In order to reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi‐agency effort including the SCAQMD, CARB, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the USEPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest population growth forecasts. (SCAG’s latest population growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.) The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan.

According to the SCAQMD, in order to determine consistency with SCAQMD’s air quality planning two main criteria must be addressed.

Criterion 1:

a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below, the Proposed Project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds during construction. Operations of the Project would not result in the production of any on‐site or off‐site emissions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations and would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.

b) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP? As shown in Table 1, the Proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD regional thresholds for construction. Operations of the Project would not result in the production of any on‐site or off‐site emissions. Because the Project would result in less than significant regional emission impacts, it would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions.

Criterion 2:

evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria.

a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the 2016 AQMP?

b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? In order to further reduce emissions, the Project would be required to comply with emission reduction measures promulgated by the SCAQMD, such as SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, which are directly applicable to construction projects. SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires fugitive dust sources to implement Best Available Control Measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. SCAQMD 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end‐users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. As such, the Proposed Project meets this consistency criterion.

c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth by SCAQMD air quality planning efforts?

In conclusion, the determination of 2016 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long‐term influence of a project on air quality. Once built, the Project would not be a source of operational air pollution. The Proposed Project would not result in a long‐term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. The Proposed Project’s long‐term influence would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP.

Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s individual emissions exceed its identified significance thresholds, the project would be cumulatively considerable. Projects that do not exceed significance thresholds would not be considered cumulative considerable.

Construction Emission Impacts Predicted maximum daily construction‐generated emissions for the Proposed Project are summarized in Table 1. Construction‐generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Construction activities would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires taking reasonable precautions to prevent the emissions of fugitive dust, such as using water or chemicals, where possible, for control of dust during the clearing of land and other construction activities.

Table 1. Construction-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis)

Pollutant (pounds per day) Construction Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Construction in 2021 2.08 43.07 14.78 0.10 2.87 1.18

SCAQMD Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55

Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs. Notes: Emission reduction/credits for construction emissions are applied based on the required implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403. The specific Rule 403 measures applied in CalEEMod include the following: sweeping/cleaning adjacent roadway access areas daily; washing equipment tires before leaving the construction site; water exposed surfaces three times daily; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. Emissions estimates account for the site preparation of 0.48 acres and the paving of 0.48 acres.

As shown in Table 1, construction‐generated emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. The SCAQMD’s pollutant significance thresholds were set at emission levels tied to the

region’s attainment status. Therefore, since the project’s emissions do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, no exceedance of the ambient air quality standards would occur, and no health effects from project criteria pollutants would occur. Localized Significance Thresholds In addition to regional significance thresholds, the SCAQMD developed localized significance thresholds

(LSTs) for emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off‐site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis protocol). In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I‐ 4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project‐specific level proposed projects. LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a Project site without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or state ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb 5 acres or less on a single day. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are single‐family and multi‐family residence located less than 20 feet (±6 meters). Notwithstanding, the SCAQMD Methodology explicitly states: “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters.” Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized in this analysis. For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Saddleback Valley source receptor area (SRA 19) as this source receptor area includes the Project site. The Proposed Project would disturb approximately 0.48‐acres total during construction. Thus, the LST threshold value for a 0.48‐acre site was calculated using the information provided from the LST lookup tables and is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions

Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Construction Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Demolition 15.32 12.84 0.72 0.67

Site Preparation 13.72 6.57 0.71 0.53

Trenching 8.21 10.54 0.45 0.43

Paving & Painting 8.23 8.89 0.44 0.41 SCAQMD Localized Emissions Threshold 82.16 339.72 1.56 1.04 Interpolated for 0.48 acres of daily disturbance Exceed Threshold? No No No No

Table 2 shows that the emissions of localized pollutant resulting during Project implementation would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Operational Emission Impacts Operational emissions impacts are long‐term air emissions impacts that are associated with any changes in permanent use of the Project site by on‐site stationary and off‐site mobile sources that substantially increase emissions. The Project proposes improvements to the underground sewer and water infrastructure within the existing right‐of‐way. The Project would not change the permanent use of the Project site or contribute to on or off‐site emissions. No long‐term operational emission impacts would occur as a result of the Project.

Localized Operational Significance Analysis According to the SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operations of a proposed project only if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The Proposed Project does not include such uses. Therefore, in the case of the Proposed Project, the operational LST protocol is not applied.

Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Construction‐Generated Air Contaminants Construction‐related activities would result in temporary, short‐term Proposed Project‐generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 from the exhaust of off‐road, heavy‐ duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); soil hauling truck traffic; paving; and other miscellaneous activities. However, as shown in Table 1 the Project would not exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds. The portion of the SoCAB which encompasses the Project area is designated as a nonattainment area for federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Thus, existing these levels in the SoCAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods.

The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. Because the

O3 concentrations and the associated health impacts.

Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Particulate matter exposure has been linked to a variety of problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing. For construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel‐fueled engines (i.e., DPM) were identified as a TAC by the CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (i.e., non‐cancer chronic risk, short‐ term acute risk) and health impacts from other TACs. Based on the emission modeling conducted, the maximum onsite construction‐related daily emissions of exhaust PM2.5, considered a surrogate for DPM, would be 0.67 pounds per day during construction activities (see Attachment A). (PM2.5 exhaust is considered a surrogate for DPM because more than 90 percent of DPM is less than 1 microgram in diameter and therefore is a subset of particulate matter under 2.5 microns in diameter (i.e., PM2.5). Most

PM2.5 derives from combustion, such as use of gasoline and diesel fuels by motor vehicles.) As with O3 and

CO, the Project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 that would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. Accordingly, the Project’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are not expected to cause any increase in related regional health effects for these pollutants.

In summary, construction‐related TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxics. Thus, the Project would not result in a potentially significant contribution to regional

or localized concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants.

Furthermore, the Project has been evaluated against the SCAQMD’s LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative and can be used to assist lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project‐specific level of proposed projects. The SCAQMD Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative program seeks to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution. The Environmental Justice Program is divided into three categories, with the LST protocol promulgated under Category I: Further‐Reduced Health Risk. As shown in Table 2, the emissions of pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Thus, the fact that onsite

Project construction emissions would be generated at rates below the LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 demonstrates that the Project would likely not adversely impact nearby sensitive receptors.

Operational Air Contaminants The Proposed Project involves 2,970 total linear feet of infrastructure improvements for the benefit of residences and businesses located in Santa Ana. It does not include the provision of new permanent stationary or mobile sources of emissions, and therefore, by its very nature, would not generate quantifiable air toxic emissions from Project operations. Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Given the high traffic volume potential, areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. However, transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Furthermore, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide in Los Angeles County can be used to demonstrate the potential for CO exceedances. The SCAQMD CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles County during the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood), Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood), Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood), and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority evaluated the level of service (LOS) in the vicinity of the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection and found it to be LOS E at peak morning traffic and LOS F at peak afternoon traffic (LOS E and F are the two least efficient traffic LOS ratings). Even with the inefficient LOS and volume of traffic, the CO analysis concluded that there was no violation of CO standards (SCAQMD 1992). The Proposed Project would not generate any vehicle trips once construction is complete. As such, it would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day. There is no likelihood of the Project traffic exceeding CO values. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast‐food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity. Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human. Construction During construction, the Proposed Project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, these emissions are short term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources. Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. Operations According to the SCAQMD, land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of obnoxious odorous emissions include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass

molding. The Proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Environmental Setting

GHGs are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land use changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons, creates a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through, but traps heat at the surface, preventing its escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect, human activities have accelerated the generation of GHGs beyond natural levels. The overabundance of GHGs in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has the potential to severely impact the earth’s climate system. Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH4 traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

Regulatory Setting

The local air pollution control officer with jurisdiction regulating pollutant emissions throughout the SoCAB is the SCAQMD, which is charged with the responsibility of implementing air quality programs and ensuring that national and state ambient air quality standards are not exceeded. The SCAQMD recommends a numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 2014, 213, 221, 227, following its review of various potential GHG thresholds proposed in an academic study [Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203], the California Supreme Court identified the use of numeric bright‐line thresholds as a potential pathway for compliance with CEQA GHG requirements. The study found numeric bright line thresholds designed to determine when small projects were so small as to not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change was consistent with CEQA. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21003(f) provides it is a policy of the state that "[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment." The Supreme Court‐reviewed study noted, "[s]ubjecting the smallest projects to the full panoply of CEQA requirements, even though the public benefit would be minimal, would not be consistent with implementing the statute in the most efficient, expeditious manner. Nor would it be consistent with applying lead agencies' scarce resources toward mitigating actual significant climate change impacts." (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227.)

The significance of the Project’s GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(2) by considering whether the Project complies with applicable plans, policies, regulations and requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The City of Santa Ana may set a project‐specific threshold based on the context of each particular project, including using the SCAQMD Working Group expert recommendation. This standard is appropriate for this Project because it is in the same air quality basin that the experts analyzed. For the

Proposed Project, the SCAQMD’s 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year threshold is used as the significance threshold in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance set forth below from Section VII of CEQA

Guidelines Appendix G. The 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year threshold represents a 90 percent capture rate (i.e., this threshold captures projects that represent approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new sources). The 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year value is typically used in defining small projects within this air basin that are considered less than significant because it represents less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target and the lead agency can provide more efficient implementation of CEQA by focusing its scarce resources on the top 90 percent. This threshold is correlated to the 90 percent capture rate for industrial projects within the air basin. Land use projects above the 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year level would fall within the percentage of largest projects that are worth mitigating without wasting scarce financial, governmental, physical and social resources. (SCAQMD, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold, at pp. 3‐2 and 3‐3; Crockett 2011). As noted in the academic study, the fact that small projects below a numeric bright line threshold are not subject to CEQA‐based mitigation, does not mean such small projects do not help the state achieve its climate change goals because even small projects participate in or comply with non‐CEQA‐based GHG reduction programs, such as constructing development in accordance with statewide GHG‐reducing energy efficiency building standards, called Cal Green or Title 24 energy‐ efficiency building standards (Crockett 2011), which seek to reduce GHG emissions from construction projets.

In 2015, the City adopted a community wide Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP identifies a GHG emission reduction target of 15 percent below 2008 levels by 2020 for communitywide emission sources and sets a long term communitywide GHG emission reduction goals of 30 percent below 2008 levels by 2035. The CAP contains a comprehensive set of strategies, measures and implementing actions to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction target. The CAP also identifies potential adverse physical effects related to climate change on the community and includes specific adaptation measures to address mitigation and such effects.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (VIII) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION

Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? GHG emissions associated with the Project would be emitted during the combustion of fossil fuels during short‐term construction activities as well as the pumping of wastewater during on‐going operations.

Construction‐Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 3 illustrates the specific construction‐generated GHG emissions that would result from construction of the Project.

Table 3. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)

Construction in 2021 183

Total 183 Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Attachment B for Model Data Outputs. Notes Emissions estimates account for the site preparation of 0.48 acres and the paving of 0.48 acres.

As shown in Table 3, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 183 metric tons of CO2e over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions (see Table 4). Operational‐Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Operations of the Proposed Project would result in GHG emissions, predominantly associated with the pumping of wastewater through sewer lines. Long‐term operational GHG emissions attributed to the Project are identified in Table 4 and compared to SCAQMD’s numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually.

Table 4. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)

Construction Emissions (amortized over the 30-year life of the Project) 6

Water & Wastewater Pumping Emissions 9

Total Emissions 15

SCAQMD Threshold 3,000

Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Attachment B for Model Data Outputs.

As shown in Table 4, operational‐generated emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric bright‐ line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually. SCAQMD thresholds were developed based on substantial evidence that such thresholds represent quantitative levels of GHG emissions, compliance with which means that the environmental impact of the GHG emissions will normally not be cumulatively considerable under CEQA. These thresholds were developed as part of the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. The working group was formed to assist the SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the state OPR, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning

departments in the SoCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the basin, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations.

Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The City of Santa Ana CAP is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the City’s boundaries, presents current and future emission estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents strategies, policies and actions to reduce emissions form the energy, transportation, land use, water use, and waste sectors. The GHG reduction strategies in the CAP build on inventory results and key opportunities prioritized by the City staff and members of the public. The CAP consists of strategies that identify steps the City will take to support reductions in GHG emissions. The City will achieve these reductions in GHG emissions through a mix of voluntary programs and new strategic standards. All standards presented in the CAP respond to the needs of development through achieving more efficient and sustainable resources. Both the existing and the projected GHG inventories in the CAP were derived based on the land use designations and associated designations defined in the City of Santa Ana General Plan. The Proposed Project will be in the public right‐of‐way and is intended to serve existing and planned land uses designated in the General Plan as single‐family residential and two‐family residential. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the land use assumptions or exceed the population or job growth projections used by the County to develop the CAP. The Project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs.

REFERENCES CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2013. Health Effects. http://www.capcoa.org/health‐effects/. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook ———. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices (Appendix F). ———. 2013. Facts about California’s Sustainable Communities Plans. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sacog_fact_sheet.pdf ———. 2018. Air Quality Data Statistics. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. ———. 2017a. State and Federal Area Designation Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. ———. 2017b. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2017 Edition. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Crockett, Alexander G. 2011. Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California’s Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2016a. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html. ———. 2016b. Methane. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html. ———. 2016c. Nitrous Oxide. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. ———. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Approved Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2017. Trip Generation Manual. Santa Ana, City of. 2009. City of Santa Ana General Plan. Updated 2009. Sana Ana Climate Action Plan. 2015. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. ———. Air Quality Management Plan. 2016

Attachment A – CalEEMod Output File for Air Quality Emissions

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

Septic to Sewer Orange County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Other Asphalt Surfaces 20.79 1000sqft 0.48 20,790.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022

Utility Company Southern California Edison

CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

Project Characteristics - Land Use - 2,970 LF * 7 feet (depth)= 20,790 SF Construction Phase - Construction phases updated to match information provided by the applicant. Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Equipment updated to match the project Off-road Equipment - Equipment updated to match the project Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Grading - Cut and fill estimated from information provided from project applicant. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 10.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/25/2021 9/1/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/19/2020 1/14/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/20/2020 1/28/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/19/2021 1/29/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/6/2020 1/1/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/20/2020 1/15/2021

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 15.00 0.50

tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 5,872.00

tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 3,356.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 16.00 78.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 367.00 187.00

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.48

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.48 0.41

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.48 0.48

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Air Compressors Dumpers/Tenders

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders Scrapers

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Scrapers

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 5.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Year lb/day lb/day

2021 2.0864 43.0730 14.7857 0.1039 2.2224 0.7221 2.8702 0.5864 0.6782 1.1857 0.0000 11,353.368 11,353.368 1.5193 0.0000 11,391.350 4 4 7

Maximum 2.0864 43.0730 14.7857 0.1039 2.2224 0.7221 2.8702 0.5864 0.6782 1.1857 0.0000 11,353.36 11,353.36 1.5193 0.0000 11,391.35 84 84 07

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2021 2.0864 43.0730 14.7857 0.1039 2.1359 0.7221 2.7836 0.5745 0.6782 1.1738 0.0000 11,353.368 11,353.368 1.5193 0.0000 11,391.350 4 4 7

Maximum 2.0864 43.0730 14.7857 0.1039 2.1359 0.7221 2.7836 0.5745 0.6782 1.1738 0.0000 11,353.36 11,353.36 1.5193 0.0000 11,391.35 84 84 07 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.89 0.00 3.02 2.02 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 8.6900e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 4.8500e- 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 8.6900e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.8500e- 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 8.6900e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 4.8500e- 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 8.6900e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.8500e- 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2021 1/14/2021 5 10

2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/15/2021 1/28/2021 5 10

3 Trenching Trenching 1/29/2021 9/1/2021 5 154

4 Paving Paving 9/2/2021 9/8/2021 5 5

5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/2/2021 9/8/2021 5 5

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0.48

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 891 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Trenching Dumpers/Tenders 1 6.00 78 0.48

Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Demolition Scrapers 1 6.00 367 0.48

Trenching Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38

Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 187 0.41

Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42

Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38

Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40

Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37

Trenching Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 6.00 81 0.73

Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37

Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41

Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Site Preparation 3 5.00 0.00 1,154.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Trenching 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.4971 15.3202 12.8489 0.0234 0.7212 0.7212 0.6773 0.6773 2,253.872 2,253.872 0.5717 2,268.164 1 1 2

Total 1.4971 15.3202 12.8489 0.0234 0.7212 0.7212 0.6773 0.6773 2,253.872 2,253.872 0.5717 2,268.164 1 1 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 0.1453 9.4000e- 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 136.8585 003 004 004 003

Total 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 0.1453 9.4000e- 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 136.8585 003 004 004 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.4971 15.3202 12.8489 0.0234 0.7212 0.7212 0.6773 0.6773 0.0000 2,253.872 2,253.872 0.5717 2,268.164 1 1 2

Total 1.4971 15.3202 12.8489 0.0234 0.7212 0.7212 0.6773 0.6773 0.0000 2,253.872 2,253.872 0.5717 2,268.164 1 1 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 0.1453 9.4000e- 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 136.8585 003 004 004 003

Total 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 0.1453 9.4000e- 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 136.8585 003 004 004 003

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 0.1574 0.0000 0.1574 0.0215 0.0000 0.0215 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 1.1684 13.7256 6.5747 0.0163 0.5552 0.5552 0.5108 0.5108 1,576.948 1,576.948 0.5100 1,589.699 9 9 3

Total 1.1684 13.7256 6.5747 0.0163 0.1574 0.5552 0.7126 0.0215 0.5108 0.5323 1,576.948 1,576.948 0.5100 1,589.699 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.8311 29.3364 8.0592 0.0871 2.0092 0.0922 2.1013 0.5500 0.0882 0.6382 9,723.809 9,723.809 1.0082 9,749.013 8 8 5

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0181 0.0109 0.1519 5.3000e- 0.0559 3.6000e- 0.0563 0.0148 3.3000e- 0.0152 52.6097 52.6097 1.1300e- 52.6379 004 004 004 003

Total 0.8492 29.3473 8.2110 0.0876 2.0651 0.0925 2.1576 0.5648 0.0885 0.6533 9,776.419 9,776.419 1.0093 9,801.651 5 5 3

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 0.0708 0.0000 0.0708 9.6900e- 0.0000 9.6900e- 0.0000 0.0000 003 003

Off-Road 1.1684 13.7256 6.5747 0.0163 0.5552 0.5552 0.5108 0.5108 0.0000 1,576.948 1,576.948 0.5100 1,589.699 9 9 3

Total 1.1684 13.7256 6.5747 0.0163 0.0708 0.5552 0.6260 9.6900e- 0.5108 0.5205 0.0000 1,576.948 1,576.948 0.5100 1,589.699 003 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.8311 29.3364 8.0592 0.0871 2.0092 0.0922 2.1013 0.5500 0.0882 0.6382 9,723.809 9,723.809 1.0082 9,749.013 8 8 5

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0181 0.0109 0.1519 5.3000e- 0.0559 3.6000e- 0.0563 0.0148 3.3000e- 0.0152 52.6097 52.6097 1.1300e- 52.6379 004 004 004 003

Total 0.8492 29.3473 8.2110 0.0876 2.0651 0.0925 2.1576 0.5648 0.0885 0.6533 9,776.419 9,776.419 1.0093 9,801.651 5 5 3

3.4 Trenching - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 0.8920 8.2188 10.5459 0.0161 0.4574 0.4574 0.4312 0.4312 1,546.551 1,546.551 0.3822 1,556.107 8 8 8

Total 0.8920 8.2188 10.5459 0.0161 0.4574 0.4574 0.4312 0.4312 1,546.551 1,546.551 0.3822 1,556.107 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.4 Trenching - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 0.1453 9.4000e- 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 136.8585 003 004 004 003

Total 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 0.1453 9.4000e- 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 136.8585 003 004 004 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 0.8920 8.2188 10.5459 0.0161 0.4574 0.4574 0.4312 0.4312 0.0000 1,546.551 1,546.551 0.3822 1,556.107 8 8 8

Total 0.8920 8.2188 10.5459 0.0161 0.4574 0.4574 0.4312 0.4312 0.0000 1,546.551 1,546.551 0.3822 1,556.107 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.4 Trenching - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 0.1453 9.4000e- 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 136.8585 003 004 004 003

Total 0.0469 0.0284 0.3949 1.3700e- 0.1453 9.4000e- 0.1463 0.0385 8.7000e- 0.0394 136.7852 136.7852 2.9300e- 136.8585 003 004 004 003

3.5 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 1,035.342 1,035.342 0.3016 1,042.881 5 5 8

Paving 0.2515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.9729 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 1,035.342 1,035.342 0.3016 1,042.881 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.5 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0650 0.0393 0.5467 1.9000e- 0.2012 1.3000e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.2000e- 0.0546 189.3950 189.3950 4.0600e- 189.4963 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0650 0.0393 0.5467 1.9000e- 0.2012 1.3000e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.2000e- 0.0546 189.3950 189.3950 4.0600e- 189.4963 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 0.7214 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 0.0000 1,035.342 1,035.342 0.3016 1,042.881 5 5 8

Paving 0.2515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.9729 6.7178 7.0899 0.0113 0.3534 0.3534 0.3286 0.3286 0.0000 1,035.342 1,035.342 0.3016 1,042.881 5 5 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.5 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0650 0.0393 0.5467 1.9000e- 0.2012 1.3000e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.2000e- 0.0546 189.3950 189.3950 4.0600e- 189.4963 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0650 0.0393 0.5467 1.9000e- 0.2012 1.3000e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.2000e- 0.0546 189.3950 189.3950 4.0600e- 189.4963 003 003 003 003

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Archit. Coating 0.8260 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003

Total 1.0449 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 3.6100e- 2.1800e- 0.0304 1.1000e- 0.0112 7.0000e- 0.0113 2.9600e- 7.0000e- 3.0300e- 10.5219 10.5219 2.3000e- 10.5276 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

Total 3.6100e- 2.1800e- 0.0304 1.1000e- 0.0112 7.0000e- 0.0113 2.9600e- 7.0000e- 3.0300e- 10.5219 10.5219 2.3000e- 10.5276 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Archit. Coating 0.8260 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003

Total 1.0449 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e- 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 3.6100e- 2.1800e- 0.0304 1.1000e- 0.0112 7.0000e- 0.0113 2.9600e- 7.0000e- 3.0300e- 10.5219 10.5219 2.3000e- 10.5276 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

Total 3.6100e- 2.1800e- 0.0304 1.1000e- 0.0112 7.0000e- 0.0113 2.9600e- 7.0000e- 3.0300e- 10.5219 10.5219 2.3000e- 10.5276 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.561378 0.043284 0.209473 0.111826 0.015545 0.005795 0.025829 0.017125 0.001747 0.001542 0.004926 0.000594 0.000934

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 8.6900e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 4.8500e- 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003

Unmitigated 8.6900e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 4.8500e- 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 1.1300e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003

Consumer 7.3600e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003

Landscaping 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 4.8500e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003

Total 8.6900e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 4.8500e- 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 1.1300e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003

Consumer 7.3600e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003

Landscaping 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 4.8500e- 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003

Total 8.6900e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 4.5500e- 4.5500e- 1.0000e- 4.8500e- 003 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 24 Date: 8/6/2020 12:41 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Summer 7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

Attachment B – CalEEMod Output File for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

Septic to Sewer Orange County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Other Asphalt Surfaces 20.79 1000sqft 0.48 20,790.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2022

Utility Company Southern California Edison

CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 10.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/25/2021 9/1/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/19/2020 1/14/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/20/2020 1/28/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/19/2021 1/29/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/6/2020 1/1/2021

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/20/2020 1/15/2021

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 15.00 0.50

tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 5,872.00

tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 3,356.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 16.00 78.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 367.00 187.00

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.48

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.48 0.41

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.48 0.48

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Air Compressors Dumpers/Tenders

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders Scrapers

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Scrapers

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 5.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2021 0.0954 0.9528 1.0053 2.0200e- 0.0232 0.0433 0.0664 6.1400e- 0.0407 0.0469 0.0000 182.6624 182.6624 0.0372 0.0000 183.5917 003 003

Maximum 0.0954 0.9528 1.0053 2.0200e- 0.0232 0.0433 0.0664 6.1400e- 0.0407 0.0469 0.0000 182.6624 182.6624 0.0372 0.0000 183.5917 003 003

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2021 0.0954 0.9528 1.0053 2.0200e- 0.0227 0.0433 0.0660 6.0800e- 0.0407 0.0468 0.0000 182.6622 182.6622 0.0372 0.0000 183.5916 003 003

Maximum 0.0954 0.9528 1.0053 2.0200e- 0.0227 0.0433 0.0660 6.0800e- 0.0407 0.0468 0.0000 182.6622 182.6622 0.0372 0.0000 183.5916 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.00 0.65 0.98 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

2 11-6-2020 2-5-2021 0.3381 0.3381

3 2-6-2021 5-5-2021 0.2922 0.2922

4 5-6-2021 8-5-2021 0.3018 0.3018

5 8-6-2021 9-30-2021 0.1145 0.1145

Highest 0.3381 0.3381

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 1.5800e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 003 004 004 004 004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.5800e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 003 004 004 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 1.5800e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 003 004 004 004 004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.5800e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 003 004 004 004 004

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2021 1/14/2021 5 10

2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/15/2021 1/28/2021 5 10

3 Trenching Trenching 1/29/2021 9/1/2021 5 154

4 Paving Paving 9/2/2021 9/8/2021 5 5

5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/2/2021 9/8/2021 5 5

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0.48

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 891 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Trenching Dumpers/Tenders 1 6.00 78 0.48

Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56

Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

Demolition Scrapers 1 6.00 367 0.48

Trenching Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38

Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 187 0.41

Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42

Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38

Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40

Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37

Trenching Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 6.00 81 0.73

Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37

Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41

Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37

Trips and VMT

Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Site Preparation 3 5.00 0.00 1,154.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Trenching 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 7.4900e- 0.0766 0.0642 1.2000e- 3.6100e- 3.6100e- 3.3900e- 3.3900e- 0.0000 10.2234 10.2234 2.5900e- 0.0000 10.2882 003 004 003 003 003 003 003

Total 7.4900e- 0.0766 0.0642 1.2000e- 3.6100e- 3.6100e- 3.3900e- 3.3900e- 0.0000 10.2234 10.2234 2.5900e- 0.0000 10.2882 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.4000e- 1.6000e- 1.8700e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 7.2000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.5962 0.5962 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5965 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005

Total 2.4000e- 1.6000e- 1.8700e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 7.2000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.5962 0.5962 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5965 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 7.4900e- 0.0766 0.0642 1.2000e- 3.6100e- 3.6100e- 3.3900e- 3.3900e- 0.0000 10.2234 10.2234 2.5900e- 0.0000 10.2882 003 004 003 003 003 003 003

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.2 Demolition - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.4000e- 1.6000e- 1.8700e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 7.2000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.5962 0.5962 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5965 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005

Total 2.4000e- 1.6000e- 1.8700e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 7.2000e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.5962 0.5962 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5965 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 7.9000e- 0.0000 7.9000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004 004 004 004

Off-Road 5.8400e- 0.0686 0.0329 8.0000e- 2.7800e- 2.7800e- 2.5500e- 2.5500e- 0.0000 7.1529 7.1529 2.3100e- 0.0000 7.2108 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 5.8400e- 0.0686 0.0329 8.0000e- 7.9000e- 2.7800e- 3.5700e- 1.1000e- 2.5500e- 2.6600e- 0.0000 7.1529 7.1529 2.3100e- 0.0000 7.2108 003 005 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 4.2000e- 0.1513 0.0412 4.3000e- 9.8900e- 4.6000e- 0.0104 2.7100e- 4.4000e- 3.1600e- 0.0000 43.8258 43.8258 4.6200e- 0.0000 43.9412 003 004 003 004 003 004 003 003

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 9.0000e- 6.0000e- 7.2000e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 2.8000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 0.2293 0.2293 0.0000 0.0000 0.2294 005 005 004 004 004 005 005

Total 4.2900e- 0.1513 0.0419 4.3000e- 0.0102 4.6000e- 0.0106 2.7800e- 4.4000e- 3.2300e- 0.0000 44.0551 44.0551 4.6200e- 0.0000 44.1706 003 004 004 003 004 003 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 3.5000e- 0.0000 3.5000e- 5.0000e- 0.0000 5.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004 004 005 005

Off-Road 5.8400e- 0.0686 0.0329 8.0000e- 2.7800e- 2.7800e- 2.5500e- 2.5500e- 0.0000 7.1529 7.1529 2.3100e- 0.0000 7.2108 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 5.8400e- 0.0686 0.0329 8.0000e- 3.5000e- 2.7800e- 3.1300e- 5.0000e- 2.5500e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 7.1529 7.1529 2.3100e- 0.0000 7.2108 003 005 004 003 003 005 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 4.2000e- 0.1513 0.0412 4.3000e- 9.8900e- 4.6000e- 0.0104 2.7100e- 4.4000e- 3.1600e- 0.0000 43.8258 43.8258 4.6200e- 0.0000 43.9412 003 004 003 004 003 004 003 003

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 9.0000e- 6.0000e- 7.2000e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 2.8000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 0.0000 0.2293 0.2293 0.0000 0.0000 0.2294 005 005 004 004 004 005 005

Total 4.2900e- 0.1513 0.0419 4.3000e- 0.0102 4.6000e- 0.0106 2.7800e- 4.4000e- 3.2300e- 0.0000 44.0551 44.0551 4.6200e- 0.0000 44.1706 003 004 004 003 004 003 003

3.4 Trenching - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0687 0.6329 0.8120 1.2400e- 0.0352 0.0352 0.0332 0.0332 0.0000 108.0316 108.0316 0.0267 0.0000 108.6992 003

Total 0.0687 0.6329 0.8120 1.2400e- 0.0352 0.0352 0.0332 0.0332 0.0000 108.0316 108.0316 0.0267 0.0000 108.6992 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.4 Trenching - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 3.6700e- 2.4700e- 0.0288 1.0000e- 0.0110 7.0000e- 0.0111 2.9200e- 7.0000e- 2.9800e- 0.0000 9.1811 9.1811 2.0000e- 0.0000 9.1860 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

Total 3.6700e- 2.4700e- 0.0288 1.0000e- 0.0110 7.0000e- 0.0111 2.9200e- 7.0000e- 2.9800e- 0.0000 9.1811 9.1811 2.0000e- 0.0000 9.1860 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0687 0.6329 0.8120 1.2400e- 0.0352 0.0352 0.0332 0.0332 0.0000 108.0315 108.0315 0.0267 0.0000 108.6990 003

Total 0.0687 0.6329 0.8120 1.2400e- 0.0352 0.0352 0.0332 0.0332 0.0000 108.0315 108.0315 0.0267 0.0000 108.6990 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.4 Trenching - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 3.6700e- 2.4700e- 0.0288 1.0000e- 0.0110 7.0000e- 0.0111 2.9200e- 7.0000e- 2.9800e- 0.0000 9.1811 9.1811 2.0000e- 0.0000 9.1860 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

Total 3.6700e- 2.4700e- 0.0288 1.0000e- 0.0110 7.0000e- 0.0111 2.9200e- 7.0000e- 2.9800e- 0.0000 9.1811 9.1811 2.0000e- 0.0000 9.1860 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

3.5 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 1.8000e- 0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.2000e- 8.2000e- 0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e- 0.0000 2.3652 003 005 004 004 004 004 004

Paving 6.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004

Total 2.4300e- 0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.2000e- 8.2000e- 0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e- 0.0000 2.3652 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.5 Paving - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 1.6000e- 1.1000e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 4.9000e- 0.0000 5.0000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.4127 0.4127 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.4130 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 005

Total 1.6000e- 1.1000e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 4.9000e- 0.0000 5.0000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.4127 0.4127 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.4130 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 005

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 1.8000e- 0.0168 0.0177 3.0000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.2000e- 8.2000e- 0.0000 2.3481 2.3481 6.8000e- 0.0000 2.3652 003 005 004 004 004 004 004

Paving 6.3000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.5 Paving - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 1.6000e- 1.1000e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 4.9000e- 0.0000 5.0000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.4127 0.4127 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.4130 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 005

Total 1.6000e- 1.1000e- 1.2900e- 0.0000 4.9000e- 0.0000 5.0000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.4127 0.4127 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.4130 004 004 003 004 004 004 004 005

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Archit. Coating 2.0600e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003

Off-Road 5.5000e- 3.8200e- 4.5400e- 1.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.6394 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005

Total 2.6100e- 3.8200e- 4.5400e- 1.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.6394 003 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0229 0.0229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0229 005 005 005 005 005 005 005

Total 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0229 0.0229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0229 005 005 005 005 005 005 005

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Archit. Coating 2.0600e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003

Off-Road 5.5000e- 3.8200e- 4.5400e- 1.0000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.6394 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0229 0.0229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0229 005 005 005 005 005 005 005

Total 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0229 0.0229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0229 005 005 005 005 005 005 005

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 1.5800e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 003 004 004 004 004

Unmitigated 1.5800e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 003 004 004 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 2.1000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 004

Consumer 1.3400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003

Landscaping 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Total 1.5700e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 003 004 004 004 004

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 2.1000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 004

Consumer 1.3400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products 003

Landscaping 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Total 1.5700e- 0.0000 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.2000e- 5.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 5.5000e- 003 004 004 004 004

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual 7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Category/Year

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 29 Date: 8/6/2020 12:37 PM

Septic to Sewer - Orange County, Annual

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations Orange County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Single Family Housing 28.00 Dwelling Unit 9.09 50,400.00 80

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30

Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2021

Utility Company Southern California Edison

CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - No construction in operations. Off-road Equipment - No construction in operations. Trips and VMT - No construction in operations. On-road Fugitive Dust - No construction in operations. Architectural Coating - No construction in operations. Vehicle Trips - VMT does not apply. Woodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces. Consumer Products - Area Coating - No coating. Energy Use - Energy use form homes does not apply for operations. Water And Wastewater - 100% of the homes will be on sewer. Solid Waste - Soild waste generated does not apply.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Exterior 24,300.00 0.00

tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Interior 72,900.00 0.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 100.00 0.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 0.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 100.00 0.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 50.00 0.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 50.00 0.00

tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 100 0

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 0.5

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 40

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1,608.84 0.00

tblEnergyUse NT24E 6,155.97 0.00

tblEnergyUse NT24NG 5,516.00 0.00

tblEnergyUse T24E 253.73 0.00

tblEnergyUse T24NG 20,288.91 0.00

tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.00

tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.00 0.00

tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00

tblFireplaces NumberGas 17.00 0.00

tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 2.00 0.00

tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.00 0.00

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00

tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave 100.00 0.00

tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 100.00 0.00

tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 100.00 0.00

tblSolidWaste LandfillCaptureGasFlare 94.00 0.00

tblSolidWaste LandfillNoGasCapture 6.00 0.00

tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 23.37 0.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 1.00 0.00

tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 8.70 0.00

tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.90 0.00

tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 14.70 0.00

tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 0.00

tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 0.00

tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 0.00

tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00

tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00

tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.00 0.00

tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.00 0.00

tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00

tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

Highest

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.2022 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4717 0.4717 4.6000e- 0.0000 0.4831 003 005 003 003 003 003 004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4610 8.3142 8.7753 1.9300e- 1.0700e- 9.1434 003 003

Total 0.2022 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.4610 8.7859 9.2469 2.3900e- 1.0700e- 9.6265 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.2022 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4717 0.4717 4.6000e- 0.0000 0.4831 003 005 003 003 003 003 004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4610 8.3142 8.7753 1.9300e- 1.0700e- 9.1434 003 003

Total 0.2022 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.4610 8.7859 9.2469 2.3900e- 1.0700e- 9.6265 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/23/2020 6/22/2020 5 0

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 0 0.00 78 0.48

Trips and VMT

Architectural Coating 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2020 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2020 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Single Family Housing 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.558976 0.043534 0.209821 0.113949 0.016111 0.005791 0.025447 0.016654 0.001713 0.001553 0.004896 0.000590 0.000966 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Single Family 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Single Family 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Single Family 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Single Family 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.2022 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4717 0.4717 4.6000e- 0.0000 0.4831 003 005 003 003 003 003 004

Unmitigated 0.2022 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4717 0.4717 4.6000e- 0.0000 0.4831 003 005 003 003 003 003 004

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.0113 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.1821 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 8.7700e- 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4717 0.4717 4.6000e- 0.0000 0.4831 003 003 005 003 003 003 003 004

Total 0.2022 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4717 0.4717 4.6000e- 0.0000 0.4831 003 005 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.0113 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.1821 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Landscaping 8.7700e- 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4717 0.4717 4.6000e- 0.0000 0.4831 003 003 005 003 003 003 003 004

Total 0.2022 3.3400e- 0.2894 2.0000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.4717 0.4717 4.6000e- 0.0000 0.4831 003 005 003 003 003 003 004

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category MT/yr

Mitigated 8.7753 1.9300e- 1.0700e- 9.1434 003 003

Unmitigated 8.7753 1.9300e- 1.0700e- 9.1434 003 003

7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Single Family 1.30308 / 8.7753 1.9300e- 1.0700e- 9.1434 Housing 0.821507 003 003

Total 8.7753 1.9300e- 1.0700e- 9.1434 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Single Family 1.30308 / 8.7753 1.9300e- 1.0700e- 9.1434 Housing 0.821507 003 003

Total 8.7753 1.9300e- 1.0700e- 9.1434 003 003

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Category/Year

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

Single Family 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

Single Family 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 20 Date: 8/12/2020 9:46 AM

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Operations - Orange County, Annual

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation Proposed Project Total Construction-Related and Operational Gasoline Usage

Carbon Dioxide Construction Equivalents (CO2e) in Conversion of Metric Equipment Emission Total Gallons of Fuel Action Metric Tons1 Tons to Kilograms2 Factor2 Consumed

Project Construction 183 183000 10.15 18,030 Per Climate Registry Equation Per Climate Registry 13e Equation 13e Per CalEEMod Output Files.

Total Gallons Consumed During Project Construction: 18,030

Notes: Fuel used by all construction equipment, including vehicle hauling trucks, assumed to be diesel.

Sources: 1ECORP Consulting, 2020.

2Climate Registry. 2016. General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program version 2.1. January 2016. http://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/General-Reporting-Protocol-Version-2.1.pdf Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

APPENDIX C

Noise Technical Memorandum

September 10, 2020

Miguel Hernandez Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 430 Exchange, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602

RE: Santa Ana Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion – Noise Technical Memorandum

Dear Mr. Hernandez: ECORP Consulting, Inc. has conducted a Noise Memorandum for the proposed Santa Ana Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project (Project) located in City of Santa Ana, California. The purpose of this memorandum is to assess the Projects potential noise impacts within the Project area.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this technical memorandum is to assess the Projects potential noise impacts within the Project area. The memorandum will compare Project-generated noise and vibration to the City of Santa Ana standards for construction and operations.

PROJECT LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The Project site is located in the City of Santa Ana (City), where it encompasses 2,970 linear feet on Medford Avenue, Pasadena Street, Deodar Street and 17th Street. The entire Project site is located in the public right-of-way. The site is generally bound by single-family residences on Medford Avenue, Pasadena Street and Deodar Street, while retail uses, multi-family residence and undeveloped land surround Ponderosa Street and 17th Street. The Project proposes to install 670 linear feet of sewer mains and lateral connecters to transfer existing residences and businesses currently employing the use of septic systems to the City’s sewer systems. Additionally, the Project would replace 2,300 linear feet of water main and laterals and transfer 50 properties from the City of Tustin water service to the City of Santa Ana.

Noise Analysis

Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise

Addition of Decibels The decibel (dB) scale is logarithmic, not linear; therefore, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted (dBA), an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same

conditions (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). For example, a 65-dB source of sound, such as a truck, when joined by another 65-dB source results in a sound amplitude of 68 dB, not 130 dB (i.e., doubling the source strength increases the sound pressure by 3 dB). Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of 5 dB. Sound Propagation and Attenuation Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB (dBA) for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dBA for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance is normally assumed. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of detached buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA (FHWA 2008), while a solid wall or berm generally reduces noise levels by 10 to 20 dBA (FHWA 2011). However, noise barriers or enclosures specifically designed to reduce site-specific construction noise can provide a sound reduction of 35 dBA or greater (Western Electro-Acoustic Laboratory, Inc. 2000). To achieve the most potent noise-reducing effect, a noise enclosure/barrier must physically fit in the available space, must completely break the “line of sight” between the noise source and the receptors, must be free of degrading holes or gaps, and must not be flanked by nearby reflective surfaces. Noise barriers must be sizable enough to cover the entire noise source and extend length-wise and vertically as far as feasibly possible to be most effective. The limiting factor for a noise barrier is not the component of noise transmitted through the material, but rather the amount of noise flanking around and over the barrier. In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the line of sight between the source and the receiver. The manner in which older structures in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2002). The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer structures is generally 30 dBA or more (Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. [HMMH] 2006). Noise Descriptors The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. The Leq is a measure of ambient noise, while the Ldn and CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) are measures of community noise. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined as follows:

 Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period

of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

 Day-Night Average (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10-dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The

logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement

of 66.4 dBA Ldn.

 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5-dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10-dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Human Response to Noise The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels. Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60- to 70-dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi- commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA), or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA noise levels, the following relationships should be noted in understanding this analysis:

 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.

 Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.

 A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.

 A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses. The Project site spans Pasadena Avenue, Medford Avenue, Deodar Avenue and 17th Street. All, with the exclusion of 17th Street, traverse a residential neighborhood (less than 20 feet from residential dwelling units).

Vibration Fundamentals

Ground vibration can be measured several ways to quantify the amplitude of vibration produced. This can be through peak particle velocity or root mean square velocity. These velocity measurements measure maximum particle at one point or the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, respectively. Vibration impacts on people can be described as the level of annoyance and can vary depending on an individual’s sensitivity. Generally, low-level vibrations may cause window rattling but do not pose any threats to the integrity of buildings or structures.

Existing Noise Environment

The City of Santa Ana is impacted by various noise sources. It is subject to typical urban noise such as noise generated by traffic, heavy machinery, and day-to-day outdoor activities as well as noise generated from the various land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities) throughout Santa Ana that generate stationary source noise. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks, are the most common source of noise in the community. The major noise sources in the vicinity of the Project site includes roadway noise traffic from the Costa Mesa Freeway to the east, as well as typical noise sources associated with residential neighborhoods (e.g., mechanical equipment, dogs barking, and radios).

Methodology

This analysis of the existing and future noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Predicted construction noise levels were calculated utilizing the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Model (2006). Operational noise levels are addressed qualitatively. Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from Caltrans. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to structural damage and human annoyance were evaluated, taking into account the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses.

NOISE CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION

Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Construction Noise Impacts

Construction noise associated with the Proposed Project would be temporary and would vary depending on the nature of the activities being performed. Noise generated would primarily be associated with the operation of off-road equipment for onsite construction activities as well as construction vehicle traffic on area roadways. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including excavators, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). During construction, exterior noise levels could negatively affect sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction site. The nearest noise sensitive land uses to the Project site are residences located on Pasadena Street, Medford Avenue and Deodar Street in all directions. All residences are located directly adjacent (less than 20 feet) from the Project site. Section 18-314, Special Provisions, of the City of Santa Ana Municipal Code prohibits construction between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or Saturday, or any time on Sunday or federal holidays but does not promulgate a numeric threshold pertaining to the noise associated with construction. This is due to the fact that construction noise is temporary, short term, intermittent in nature, and would cease on completion of the Project. Furthermore, the City of Santa Ana is a developing urban community and construction noise is generally accepted as a reality within the urban environment. Additionally, construction would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at one point. To estimate the worst-case onsite construction noise levels that may occur at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity, the construction equipment noise levels were calculated using the Roadway Noise Construction Model for the demolition, site preparation, trenching, paving and painting and compared against the construction‐related noise level threshold established in the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared in 1998 by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the US Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The NIOSH construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day; for every 3-dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This reduction results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than 4 hours per day, 92 dBA for more than 1 hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby existing and future planned sensitive receptors.

The anticipated short-term construction noise levels generated for the necessary equipment is presented in Table 1. Consistent with FTA recommendations for calculating construction noise, construction noise was measured from the center of the Project site (FTA 2018). As previously stated, the nearest noise sensitive land uses to the Project site are residences located approximately 20 feet distant.

Table 1. Onsite Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels by Receptor Distance and Construction Equipment

Estimated Exterior Construction Noise Exceeds Standards? Equipment Construction Noise Level @ Standard (dBA Leq) Closest Residence

Demolition

Scrapers(1) 87.6 85 Yes

Rubber Tired Dozers (1) 85.6 85 Yes

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 88.0 85 Yes (1)

Combined Demolition 91.1 85 Yes Equipment

Site Preparation

Scrapers (1) 87.6 85 Yes

Graders (1) 89.0 85 Yes

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 88.0 85 Yes (1)

Combined Site Preparation 93.0 85 Yes Equipment

Trenching

Dumpers/Tenders (1) 80.4 85 No

Excavators (1) 84.7 85 No

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 88.0(each) 85 Yes (2)

Concrete/Industrial Saws (1) 90.5 85 Yes

Combined Trenching 94.5 85 Yes Equipment

Paving & Painting

Cement and Mortar Mixers (4) 82.6 (each) 85 No

Pavers (1) 82.2 85 No

Air Compressors (1) 81.6 85 No

Table 1. Onsite Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels by Receptor Distance and Construction Equipment

Estimated Exterior Construction Noise Exceeds Standards? Equipment Construction Noise Level @ Standard (dBA Leq) Closest Residence

Rollers (1) 81.0 85 No

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(1) 88.0 85 Yes

As shown in Table 1, a majority of the individual pieces of construction equipment and all cumulative construction equipment would exceed the NIOSH noise threshold of 85 dBA at the adjacent sensitive receptors. It is recommended that the implementation of temporary noise barriers be used during Project construction. Noise barriers or enclosures can provide a sound reduction of 35 dBA or greater (WEAL 2000). To be effective, a noise enclosure/barrier must physically fit in the available space, must completely break the line of sight between the noise source and the receptors, must be free of degrading holes or gaps, and must not be flanked by nearby reflective surfaces. Noise barriers must be sizable enough to cover the entire noise source and extend lengthwise and vertically as far as feasibly possible to be most effective. The limiting factor for a noise barrier is not the component of noise transmitted through the material, but rather the amount of noise flanking around and over the barrier. In the case of Project construction, an enclosure/barrier would only be necessary at the area of the construction site where noise producing activities are being performed.

The following mitigation is recommended. NOI-1: The Project construction and improvement plans will include the following requirements for construction activities:

• A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall be posted at the Project construction site providing a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. This sign shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities. In conjunction with this required posting, a noise disturbance coordinator will be identified to address construction noise concerns received. The coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall

implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City. All signs posted at the construction site shall include the contact name and the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator.

• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.

• Per Section 18-314of the City’s Municipal Code, construction shall be prohibited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or Saturday, or any time on Sunday or federal holidays

NOI-2: In order to reduce construction noise, during the demolition, site preparation, trenching, painting and paving phases, a temporary noise barrier or enclosure should be positioned between Project construction and the residences in a manner that breaks the line of sight between the construction equipment and these residences to the extent feasible. The composition, length, height, and location of temporary noise control barrier walls should be adequate to assure proper acoustical performance and withstand structural failure. Implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would substantially reduce construction- generated noise levels. As previously described, noise barriers or enclosures such as that recommended in mitigation measure NOI-2 can provide a sound reduction 35 dBA or greater (WEAL 2000), which would be a reduction robust enough to maintain construction noise levels less than 85 dBA. Temporary noise barriers can consist of a solid plywood fence and/or flexible sound curtains, such as an 18-ounce tarp or a 2-inch-thick fiberglass blanket attached to chain link fencing. Therefore, Project construction activities would not expose persons to and generate noise levels in excess of County standards with implementation of NOI-1 and NOI-2.

Operational Noise Impact The Proposed Project consists of sewer and water infrastructure improvements. It would not be a source of mobile or stationary noise sources and thus would not be a source of operational noise.

Would the Project result generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Construction Vibration Impacts

Excessive groundborne vibration impacts result from continuously occurring vibration levels. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Proposed Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction on the Project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks. It is not anticipated that pile drivers would be necessary during Project construction. Vibration decreases rapidly with distance and it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to sensitive receptors. Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment at 20 Feet

Equipment Type Peak Particle Velocity at 20 Feet (inches per second)

Large Bulldozer 0.124

Caisson Drilling 0.124

Loaded Trucks 0.106

Rock Breaker 0.115

Jackhammer 0.049

Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.004 Source: FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020

The City does not regulate vibration associated with construction. However, a discussion of construction vibration is included for full disclosure purposes. For comparison purposes, the Caltrans’s (2020) recommended standard of 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal residential buildings is used as a threshold. This is also the level at which vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings. It is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. The nearest structures of concern to the construction site are residential structures located less than 20 feet away on Pasadena Avenue, Medford Avenue and Deodar Street. Based on the vibration levels presented in Table 2, ground vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment would not be anticipated to exceed approximately 0.124 inches per second peak particle velocity at 20 feet. Therefore, vibration from construction activities experienced at

the nearest adjacent residences would be expected to be below the 0.2 inch per second peak particle velocity threshold.

Operational Vibration Impacts

Would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport noise levels?

The Project site is located approximately 6 miles south of the John Wayne International Airport. The Proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not affect airport operations nor result in increased exposure of people working at or residing the Project site to aircraft noise.

Cumulative Noise Impact

Cumulative Construction Noise Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project and other construction projects in the area may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the area. However, construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to the construction site. Construction noise for the Proposed Project was determined to be less than significant following compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and NOI-2. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the Project site could result in elevated construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the Project area. However, each project would be required to comply with the applicable limitations on construction. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts during construction.

Cumulative Operational Noise As previously discussed, once operational the Project would not be a source of operational noise.

REFERENCES

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

____. 2020. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

HMMH. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.

Santa Ana, City of. 2009. City of Santa Ana General Plan. Updated 2009.

WEAL. 2000. Sound Transmission Sound Test Laboratory Report No. TL 96-186.

ATTACHMENT A

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 8/12/2020 Case Description: Demolition

Description Affected Land Use Demolition Residential

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) Scraper No 40 83.6 20 Dozer No 40 81.7 20 Tractor No 40 84 20

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq Scraper 91.5 87.6 Dozer 89.6 85.6 Tractor 92 88 Total 92 91.9 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 8/12/2020 Case Description: Site Preparation

Description Affected Land Use Site Preparation Residential

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) Scraper No 40 83.6 20 Grader No 40 85 20 Tractor No 40 84 20

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq Scraper 91.5 87.6 Grader 93 89 Tractor 92 88 Total 93 93 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 8/12/2020 Case Description: Trenching

Description Affected Land Use Residential Residential

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) Dump Truck No 40 76.5 20 Excavator No 40 80.7 20 Tractor No 40 84 20 Tractor No 40 84 20 Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 20

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq Dump Truck 84.4 80.4 Excavator 88.7 84.7 Tractor 92 88 Tractor 92 88 Concrete Saw 97.5 90.5 Total 97.5 94.5 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1

Report date: 8/12/2020 Case Description: Paving & Painting

Description Affected Land Use Paving & Painting Residential

Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 20 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 20 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 20 Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 20 Paver No 50 77.2 20 Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 20 Roller No 20 80 20 Tractor No 40 84 20

Calculated (dBA)

Equipment *Lmax Leq Concrete Mixer Truck 86.8 82.8 Concrete Mixer Truck 86.8 82.8 Concrete Mixer Truck 86.8 82.8 Concrete Mixer Truck 86.8 82.8 Paver 85.2 82.2 Compressor (air) 85.6 81.6 Roller 88 81 Tractor 92 88 Total 92 92.6 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

APPENDIX D

Cultural Records Search

Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Project Records Search Results Memo

Cultural Background

The project area was part of territory occupied by the Juaneño or Acjachemen and the Gabrielino or Tongva Native American groups when the Spanish arrived in A.D. 1769. The Juaneño and Gabrielino lived in villages of up to 250 people and were located near permanent water sources and a variety of food resources. The village was the center of a territory from which resources were gathered. Work parties left the village to hunt, fish, and gather plant foods. The village of Pajbenga was located near the confluence of the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek.

Colonization of California began with the Spanish Portolá land expedition. The expedition, led by Captain Gaspar de Portolá of the Spanish army and Father Junipero Serra, a Franciscan missionary, explored the California coast from San Diego to the Monterrey Bay Area in 1769. As a result of this expedition, Spanish missions to convert the native population, presidios (forts), and towns were established. The Franciscan missionary friars established 21 missions in Alta California (the area north of Baja California) beginning with Mission San Diego in 1769 and ending with the mission in Sonoma established in 1823. The purpose of the missions and presidios was to establish Spanish economic, military, political, and religious control over the Alta California territory. Mission San Gabriel Archangel was founded in 1771 east of what is now Los Angeles to convert the Tongva or Gabrielino. Mission San Juan Capistrano was established in 1776 on San Juan Creek (in what is now southern Orange County) to convert the Agjachemem or Juaneño (Castillo 1978:100).

Some of the land between the missions was granted to cattle ranchers. Juan Pablo Grijalva, a retired Spanish soldier who lived in San Diego, had cattle on the east bank of the Santa Ana River beginning in 1801 and built an adobe house on Hoyt Hill in what is now Orange (City of Orange 2007). This rancho along the east bank of the Santa Ana River became the Santiago de Santa Ana land grant issued to Grijalva’s son-in-law, Jose Antonio Yorba, in 1810 (Aviña 1976:42).

After Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, what is now California became the Mexican province of Alta California. The Mexican government closed the missions in the 1830s and former mission lands were granted to retired soldiers and other Mexican citizens for use as cattle ranches. Much of the land along the coast and in the interior valleys became part of Mexican land grants or “ranchos” (Robinson 1948). The previous Spanish land grants, including the Santiago de Santa Ana land grant, were recognized by Mexico. During the Mexican period there were small towns at San Diego (near the presidio), San Juan Capistrano (around the mission), and Los Angeles. The rancho owners lived in one of the towns or in an adobe house on the rancho. The Mexican Period includes the years 1821 to 1848.

The American period began when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between Mexico and the United States in 1848. As a result of the treaty, Alta California became part of the United States as the territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 allowed California to become a state in 1850. Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General’s office.

In the early 1860s drought and floods in southern California greatly reduced the cattle herds on the ranchos and many of the rancho owners were forced to sell their land or lost it due to foreclosure (Cleland 1951). One of the Yorba heirs and part-owner of the Santiago de Santa Ana land grant, Leonardo Cota, was loaned money by Abel Stearns, a wealthy landowner from Los Angeles. When Cota defaulted, Stearns filed suit to partition the land grant so he could be repaid in land. The grant was partitioned into 1,000 tracts in 1868 (City of Orange 2007). One of the tracts (74.27 acres) was allotted to Zenobia Yorba de Rowland. She sold the tract to Jacob Ross who sold it to William H. Spurgeon and Ward Bradford in 1869. The property was divided between them in 1870 (Friis 1965:59-61).

Spurgeon laid out and surveyed the townsite of Santa Ana on his part of the tract (the easterly half). The original town was bounded by First Street on the south, by Spurgeon Street on the east, by Seventh Street on the north, and by West Street (now Broadway) on the west. Spurgeon ran a store on the corner of Fourth and Broadway and became the first postmaster. The Los Angeles to San Diego stage line passed through the neighboring competing town of Tustin, but Spurgeon persuaded the stage line to also stop in Santa Ana. In 1871 the Anaheim Gazette noted that there were 50 houses in the town of Santa Ana. The Semi-Tropic Water Company, organized in 1873, bought the Chapman Ditch, which brought water from the Santa Ana River to Orange, and extended it to Santa Ana and Tustin (Friis 1965:59-61). Santa Ana was able to provide a larger subsidy than Tustin which persuaded the Los Angeles & San Diego Railroad Company to extend their Los Angeles - Anaheim line to Santa Ana, rather than Tustin, in 1877. The Los Angeles & San Diego Railroad Company was purchased by the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1878 (Robertson 1998). The arrival of the railroad resulted in the expansion of Santa Ana at the expense of Tustin. Santa Ana became a city while Tustin remained a village or town (Friis 1965:59-61). The City of Santa Ana was incorporated June 1, 1886 (Dumke 1944:115).

The California Central Railway Company (which became part of the Southern California Railway Company in 1889 and the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe [AT&SF] Railroad in 1906) completed its line from Los Angeles to San Diego via Santa Ana in 1888 (Robertson 1998). The arrival of the AT&SF in southern California resulted in competition with the other transcontinental railroad, the Southern Pacific Railroad. The ensuing rate war brought many people to southern California seeking to establish homes, farms, and businesses. This resulted in a real estate boom known as the “Boom of the Eighties” (Dumke 1944). Many lots in Santa Ana were sold in 1886 and 1887 and many new tracts and additions to the city were recorded. A new hotel, five business blocks, and a school were planned.

A bill passed in the California legislature enabled the formation of Orange County. Local elections in 1889 allowed Orange County to separate from Los Angeles County and established Santa Ana as the county seat (Friis 1965:97-98).

In 1928 Santa Ana attempted to annex 6,000 acres of land that extended south all the way to Newport Bay. The intent was to establish a port for Santa Ana. However, the voters in that area rejected the annexation (Friis 1965:135). The 1933 earthquake resulted in three deaths from debris falling from hotels in Santa Ana. During World War II the City of Santa Ana leased a ranch south of town to the War Department. The Santa Ana Army Air Base was established on this land. In addition the West Coast Air Corps Training Center was established in several buildings in Santa Ana. Thousands of pilots, navigators, and bombers were trained at these facilities during the war (Friis 1965:152).

Records Search Results

A records search was performed on June 5, 2019 at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton to identify previously recorded cultural resources within the project area and within a one-half-mile radius around the project area.

In addition to site records and reports on file at the SCCIC, the California Historic Property Data File (HPDF) for Orange County (OHP 2012) was consulted for Santa Ana. The HPDF provides information about resources determined eligible for, or listed on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources. It also provides information on resources that are California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest.

The records search showed that a total of 6 cultural resources investigations have been conducted within the one-half-mile records search radius. These were surveys of very small areas. Five of these were locations where cellular telecommunications facilities were proposed.

The records search results show that 2 built environment cultural resources have been previously recorded within the one-half-mile records search radius. The built environment resources are:

• Craftsman bungalow single family residence at 17391 E. Santa Clara Avenue (P30- 161988)

• Cavalry Church at 1010 N. Tustin Avenue (P30-177515)

None of the previously recorded resources on file at the SCCIC are in or adjacent to the project area. No archaeological sites and no built environment resources have been recorded in the project area.

The HPDF lists hundreds of historic-period buildings and structures in Santa Ana. However, none of these are in the project area.

The 1901 USGS Anaheim quad (1:62,500) shows scattered rural residences along what would become 17th Street and Tustin Avenue. The 1932 USGS Orange quad (1:31,680) also shows scattered rural residences along 17th Street and Tustin Avenue. No buildings are shown in the project area. The 1949 USGS Orange quad (1:24,000) shows 8 buildings (probably houses) on both sides of Deodar Street north of 17th Street. The 1964 USGS Orange quad (1:24,000) shows the street system in the project area as it currently exists. The SR 55 freeway is also present. The project area has a red urban tint, indicating that individual buildings are not shown. The project area is surrounded by undeveloped areas with citrus groves. Corporate boundary lines show that the project area was not within the City of Santa Ana. The 1964 (photo-revised 1984) USGS Orange quad (1:24,000) shows the entire area around the project area as developed with conditions similar to today.

The records search results show that the project area has a low potential for subsurface prehistoric and historic period archaeological material.

References Cited

Aviña, Rose H. 1976 Spanish and Mexican Land Grants in California. Arno Press, New York.

Castillo, Edward D. 1978 The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 99-127. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

City of Orange 2007 History of Orange. http://www.cityoforange.org/about/history.asp

Cleland, Robert G. 1951 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills, Southern California, 1850-80. Second Edition. The Huntington Library, San Marino.

Dumke, Glenn S. 1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San Marino.

Friis, Leo L. 1965 Orange County Through Four Centuries. Pioneer Press, Santa Ana.

Robertson, Donald B. 1998 Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History, Volume IV, California. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.

Robinson, W. W. 1948 Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Map Features

Project Area Parcels 1/2 Mile Buffer

(AMM)-amyers 6/4/2019

Orange County, California Unsectioned Portion of the Santiago de Santa Ana Landgrant, SBBM Latitude (NAD83): 33.756210° Longitude (NAD83): -117.827086° Watershed: Newport Bay (18070204) I Scale in Feet 0 1,000 2,000 Orange (1981, NAD27) CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle US Geological Survey Location: N:\2019\2019-025 Santa Ana Septicto Sewer\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\SASS_RS_20190604.mxd Map Date: 6/4/2019 iService Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Records Seach Map 2019-025 Septic to Sewer Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Septic to Gravity Sewer Conversion Project

APPENDIX E

Tribal Resources Consultation

Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Orange County 11/26/2019

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Indians Charles Alvarez, Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director 23454 Vanowen Street Gabrielino 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla West Hills, CA, 91307 Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (310) 403 - 6048 Phone: (760) 699 - 6907 [email protected] Fax: (760) 699-6924 [email protected] Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Sonia Johnston, Chairperson Indians P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson Santa Ana, CA, 92799 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla [email protected] Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Phone: (760) 699 - 6800 Juaneno Band of Mission Fax: (760) 699-6919 Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager Gabrieleno Band of Mission 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno Indians - Kizh Nation Irvine, CA, 92603 Andrew Salas, Chairperson Phone: (949) 293 - 8522 P.O. Box 393 Gabrieleno [email protected] Covina, CA, 91723 Phone: (626) 926 - 4131 Juaneno Band of Mission [email protected] Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Matias Belardes, Chairperson Band of Mission Indians 32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno Anthony Morales, Chairperson San Juan Capisttrano, CA, 92675 P.O. Box 693 Gabrieleno Phone: (949) 293 - 8522 San Gabriel, CA, 91778 [email protected] Phone: (626) 483 - 3564 Fax: (626) 286-1262 Juaneno Band of Mission [email protected] Indians Acjachemen Nation - Romero Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Teresa Romero, Chairperson Sandonne Goad, Chairperson 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., Gabrielino San Juan Capistrano, CA, 92675 #231 Phone: (949) 488 - 3484 Los Angeles, CA, 90012 Fax: (949) 488-3294 Phone: (951) 807 - 0479 [email protected] [email protected] La Jolla Band of Luiseno Gabrielino Tongva Indians of Indians California Tribal Council Fred Nelson, Chairperson Robert Dorame, Chairperson 22000 Highway 76 Luiseno P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Pauma Valley, CA, 92061 Bellflower, CA, 90707 Phone: (760) 742 - 3771 Phone: (562) 761 - 6417 Fax: (562) 761-6417 [email protected]

This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Conversations Project, Orange County.

PROJ-2019- 11/26/2019 02:09 PM 1 of 2 006100 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Orange County 11/26/2019

Pala Band of Mission Indians Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson Preservation Officer One Government Center Lane Luiseno PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Cupeno Valley Center, CA, 92082 Rd. Luiseno Phone: (760) 749 - 1051 Pala, CA, 92059 Fax: (760) 749-5144 Phone: (760) 891 - 3515 [email protected] Fax: (760) 742-3189 [email protected] San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Temet Aguilar, Chairperson Vista, CA, 92081 P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Phone: (760) 724 - 8505 Pauma Valley, CA, 92061 Fax: (760) 724-2172 Phone: (760) 742 - 1289 [email protected] Fax: (760) 742-3422 [email protected] San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Pechanga Band of Luiseno San Luis Rey, Tribal Council Indians 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Vista, CA, 92081 Coordinator Phone: (760) 724 - 8505 P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Fax: (760) 724-2172 Temecula, CA, 92593 [email protected] Phone: (951) 770 - 6306 Fax: (951) 506-9491 Soboba Band of Luiseno [email protected] Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Pechanga Band of Luiseno Resource Department Indians P.O. BOX 487 Cahuilla Mark Macarro, Chairperson San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Luiseno P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Phone: (951) 663 - 5279 Temecula, CA, 92593 Fax: (951) 654-4198 Phone: (951) 770 - 6000 [email protected] Fax: (951) 695-1778 [email protected] Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Scott Cozart, Chairperson Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic P. O. Box 487 Cahuilla Preservation Officer San Jacinto, CA, 92583 Luiseno One Government Center Lane Luiseno Phone: (951) 654 - 2765 Valley Center, CA, 92082 Fax: (951) 654-4198 Phone: (760) 297 - 2635 [email protected] [email protected]

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Santa Ana Septic to Sewer Conversations Project, Orange County.

PROJ-2019- 11/26/2019 02:09 PM 2 of 2 006100 GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION Historically known as The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin

Project Name: The Septic to Sewer Conversion Project, Pasadena Street, Santa Ana, Orange, California Dear Armando Fernandez,

Thank you for your letter dated December 12, 2019 regarding AB52 consultation. The above proposed project location is within our Ancestral Tribal Territory; therefore, our Tribal Government requests to schedule a consultation with you as the lead agency, to discuss the project and the surrounding location in further detail.

Please contact us at your earliest convenience. Please Note:AB 52, “consultation” shall have the same meaning as provided in SB 18 (Govt. Code Section 65352.4).

Thank you for your time,

Andrew Salas, Chairman Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 1(844)390-0787

Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders

PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 [email protected] [email protected]

Brian Ige PWA – Water Resources Division 714-647-3385

From: Gabrieleno Administration Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:13 PM To: Ige, Brian Cc: Fernandez, Armando ; Matthew Teutimez ; Andy Salas Subject: AB52 Consultation: Septic Sewer Conversion Project in the City of Santa Ana.

Thank you for your time during the AB52 consultation for the project at Septic Sewer Conversion Project in the City of Santa Ana.

As stated in the Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area may have expertise concerning their tribal cultural resources and an area that has cultural value. According to section 21074. (a) “Tribal cultural resources” can be sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.

Therefore, to explain our concerns for impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCR's) and how this project location may impact TCR's due to the location and the proposed ground disturbing activities, attached are screenshots and some explanatory text that was also verbally explained in the phone consultation for your project location.

This Septic Sewer Conversion_1938 map indicates the project location within the Village of Pasbengna. All of our mainland villages (sans our island villages) overlapped each other to help facilitate the movement of tribal cultural resources throughout the landscape and also to our sister tribes outside of our traditional ancestral territory. Village use areas were usually shared between village areas and were commonly used by two or more adjoining villages depending on the type, quantity, quality, and availability of natural resources in the area. Therefore, human activity can be pronounced within the shared use areas due to the combined use by multiple villages and TCR’s may be present in the soil layers from the thousands of years of human activity within that landscape.

This Septic Sewer Conversion_1901 map shows the project's close proximity to a railroad that existed in this location. All railroads were placed on top of our Tribe's traditional trade routes because when the first railroad planners came out west, the topography was too varied to place the rail lines just anyplace, so they chose the paths of least resistance that already existed which were our traditional trade routes that were flattened by human travel over thousands of years of use.

The Septic Sewer Conversion_1938 and the Septic Sewer Conversion_1881 map shows the many trade routes around the project area. Trade routes were heavily used by our Tribe for movement of trade items, visiting of family, going to ceremony, accessing recreation areas, and accessing foraging areas. Within and around these routes contained seasonal or permanent ramadas or trade depots, seasonal and permanent habitation areas, and often still contain isolated burials and cremations from folks who died along the trail. These isolated burials are not associated with a village community burial site or ceremonial burial site, rather the location is simply where the person died and was buried where they died. Therefore, isolated burials are more concentrated and likely to occur in proximity to our trade routes, especially the major trade routes. Trade routes are considered “cultural landscapes”, as stated in section 21074. (a) because the landscapes will house the objects, therefore, both cultural landscapes and cultural objects are protected under AB52 as a tribal cultural resource.

The Septic Sewer Conversion_1938 maps indicate the hydrography or waterways that existed around the project area. All water sources were used by our Tribe for life sustenance. Along these watercourses and water bodies occurred seasonal or permanent hamlets, seasonal or permanent trade depots, ceremonial and religious prayer sites, and burials and cremation sites of our ancestors. These activities occurred around water, both inland and coastal, because these water areas create unique habitats and riparian corridors that provide an abundance of food and medicine resources along with aesthetically peaceful areas with running water, shade trees, and shelter. Larger water bodies were high attractants for human activity and the banks and shores of these water bodies have a higher than average potential for encountering Tribal Cultural Resources of artifacts and human remains during ground disturbing activities. Waterways are a “cultural landscape”, as stated in section 21074. (a) and are protected under AB52 as a tribal cultural resource.

Due to the project site being located within and around a sacred village (Pasbengna), adjacent to sacred water courses, a major traditional trade routes, there is a high potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources still present within the soil from the thousands of years of prehistoric activities that occurred within and around these Tribal Cultural landscapes. Therefore, to avoid impacting or destroying Tribal Cultural Resources that may be inadvertently unearthed during the project's ground disturbing activities and pursuant to our consultation, we have provided to the Lead Agency substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant impact on our TCRs. “. . . [T]ribal Cultural Resources include, but are not limited to, sites, features, places, or objects with cultural value to descendant communities, traditional culture properties, or tribal cultural landscapes consistent with the guidance of the federal National Park Services’ Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.” (AB 52, Natural Resources Agency, at p. 2.) Moreover, Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21084.2 states that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” A project that may have a significant effect on the environment requires appropriate mitigation. (PRC § 21082.3(b).) Through the consultation process, AB 52 authorized California Native American tribes to assist lead agencies in identifying, interpreting, and determining the significance of TCRs. (See AB 52, Legislative Digest.) Unless the environmental document includes mitigation measures agreed on during the consultation process, "if substantial evidence demonstrates" the project "will cause" a significant effect to a TCR, the agency must "consider" feasible mitigation measures "pursuant to" Pub Res C §21084.3(b).

As well, Consultation is not deemed concluded for purposes of CEQA until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or when a party concludes, after a reasonable effort, that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (PRC §21080.3.2(b).) Any mitigation measures agreed on during the consultation process must be recommended by lead agency staff for inclusion in the environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project pursuant to section 21082.3(a) of the PRC. Moreover, now that consultation has begun, as the lead agency, you may certify an EIR or adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the subject project (which that may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource ) only after consultation has concluded. (PRC §21082.3(d).) Please find attached the proposed mitigation measures for the subject project. Once you have reviewed them, please provide written notification to the Tribe stating whether and to what extent you will include and require the proposed mitigations for TCR for the subject project so that we may conclude our consultation, and if you do not agree with the mitigations as proposed, so that we may continue our consultation discussions in an effort to reach an agreement. Admin Specialist Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Office: 844-390-0787 website: www.gabrielenoindians.org

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation

Protection of Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs)

Most Important Things for Agencies to Know About AB52:

• An EIR, MND, or ND can not be certified until AB-52 tribal consultation has concluded. • Agreed mitigation measures with the tribe, MUST be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document. • Signature confirming acceptance of these mitigation measures recommended by our Tribal Government is required within 14 days of receipt to conclude AB52 consultation.

Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures within Kizh Nation Tribal Territory:

Note: To avoid compliance issues with the following laws, all Native American Monitoring shall be conducted by a documented lineal descendant from the ancestral Tribe of the project area (NAGPRA Law 10.14)

• The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Public Law - 101-601, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., 104 Stat. 3048. • CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5, PRC 5097.98 (d)(1). • The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

If you are receiving these measures, The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh -Nation are the direct lineal descendants of your project area. The Kizh Nation ONLY responds and consults on projects within their ANCESTRAL tribal territory. Therefore, to remain in compliance with above referenced laws and to enable our Tribe with the ability to protect and preserve our last remaining and irreplaceable Tribal Cultural Resources, it is recommended that the project applicant retain a qualified professional tribal monitor/consultant from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh -Nation. The Kizh Nation possesses Tribal archives including documented historical information as well as multiple members who possess unique knowledge derived from oral tradition passed down through generations of the Tribe in order to provide the expertise needed to identify whether a project is located within a culturally sensitive area given its proximity to village areas, commerce areas, recreation areas, ceremonial areas, and burial locations.

Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Guidelines for Native American Monitors/Consultants (approved 9/13/05): By acting as a liaison between Native American, archaeologist, developers, contactors and public agency, a Native American monitor/consultant can ensure that cultural features are treated appropriately from the Native American point of view. This can help others involved in a project to coordinate mitigation measures. These guidelines are intended to provide prospective monitors/consultants, and people who hire monitors/consultants, with an understanding of the scope and extant of knowledge that should be expected.

Mitigation Guidelines for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs): CEQA now defines TCRs as an independent element separate from archaeological resources. Environmental documents shall address a separate Tribal Cultural Resources section that includes a thorough analysis of the impacts to only TCRs and includes separate and independent mitigation measures created with tribal input under AB-52 consultations. Therefore, all agreements, mitigation, and conditions of approval regarding TCRs shall be handled solely with the Tribal Government and conversely all agreements, mitigation, and conditions of approval regarding Archaeological Resources shall be handled by an Archaeological resource company.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant: The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both ancestrally affiliated with the project area and approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. A Native American monitor shall be retained by the Lead Agency or owner of the project to be on site to monitor all project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities (i.e., boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, etc.). A monitor associated with one of the NAHC recognized Tribal governments which have commented on the project shall provide the Native American monitor. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and, if necessary, additional protective mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources.

Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non- profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed.

Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discovery of human remains, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant will immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the discovery location. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are human and subsequently Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD).

Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects.

Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects will be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.

Acceptance of Tribal Government Recommended Mitigation Measures:

By ______Date: ______Lead Agency Representative Signature

Revised: April 2020

Attachment A

Kizh Nation Ancestral Tribal Territory extended along the coast from Malibu Creek in Los Angeles County down to Aliso Creek in Orange County and encompassed the Channel Islands of Catalina (Pimugna), San Nicolas (Haraasnga), and San Clemente (Kiinkenga). Our inland border was the San Gabriel Mountains (Hidakupa) and eastwardly our territory extended to parts of San Bernardino (Waatsngna), Orange, and Riverside counties.