D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E ... · 5.2.2 Intertek, PSI ......

$Page 1: D R A F T I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E ... · 5.2.2 Intertek, PSI ... \CGG1801\CEQA\Admin Draft ISMND CC 06192018.docx «06/19 ... Phase I Environmental Site Assessment$
D R A F T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N

HOUSE FOODS AMERICA CORPORATION EXPANSION PROJECT

City of Garden Grove Community and Economic Development Department

11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840

Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200

Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666

Project No. CGG1801

June 2018

This page intentionally left blank

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N J U N E 2 0 1 8

H O U S E F O O D S A M E R I C A C O R P O R A T I O N E X P A N S I O N P R O J E C T C I T Y O F G A R D E N G R O V E , C A L I F O R N I A

P:\CGG1801\CEQA\Admin Draft ISMND CC 06192018.docx «06/19/18»

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................ v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Contact Person .................................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Site and Site Description ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Setting .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Project Vicinity and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Existing Project Site ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.4 Existing General Plan Designation and Zoning Classifications ............................................ 2-7

2.2 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.1 Development Proposal ....................................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.2 Building and Site Design ................................................................................................... 2-20 2.2.3 Infrastructure Improvements ........................................................................................... 2-25 2.2.4 Implementation/Phasing .................................................................................................. 2-26

2.3 Required Permits and Approvals..................................................................................... 2-27 2.3.1 Discretionary Actions ........................................................................................................ 2-27 2.3.2 Future Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals ............................................................... 2-27

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2 Agricultural Resources .................................................................................................... 3-12 3.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-21 3.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 3-26 3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 3-31 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 3-37 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................... 3-43 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 3-55 3.10 Land Use Planning ........................................................................................................... 3-68 3.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-75 3.12 Noise................................................................................................................................ 3-77 3.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 3-96 3.14 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 3-98 3.15 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 3-105 3.16 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................... 3-108 3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3-116 3.18 Utilities/Service Systems ............................................................................................... 3-120 3.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................. 3-128

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................. 4-1

4.1 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures ................................................................................... 4-2

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 5-1



P:\CGG1801\CEQA\Admin Draft ISMND CC 06192018.docx «06/19/18» ii

5.1 City of Garden Grove ......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Consultant Team ............................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Amec Foster Wheeler ......................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Intertek, PSI ........................................................................................................................ 5-2 5.2.3 Joseph C. Truxaw and Associates ....................................................................................... 5-2

6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 6-1

FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Regional Project Location .................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2.2: Existing Land Uses ............................................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 2.3: Existing Project Site ........................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2.4: Photographs of the Existing Project Site ......................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2.5: General Plan Land Uses ................................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2.6: Zoning Map ...................................................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2.7: Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 2-17 Figure 2.8: Conceptual Lighting Plan ................................................................................................. 2-23 Figure 3.12.1: Noise Monitoring Locations ....................................................................................... 3-87

TABLES

Table 2.A: Existing & Proposed Buildings on the Project Site ........................................................... 2-19 Table 3.3.A: SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ................................................................................. 3-16 Table 3.3.B: Peak Daily Construction Emissions ................................................................................ 3-17 Table 3.3.C: Peak Daily Operational Emissions ................................................................................. 3-18 Table 3.3.D: Construction Localized Emissions ................................................................................. 3-19 Table 3.3.E: Operational Localized Emissions ................................................................................... 3-20 Table 3.7.A: Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................... 3-40 Table 3.7.B: Long Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... 3-41 Table 3.7.C: Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas

Emissions .................................................................................................................................. 3-42 Table 3.10.A: Land Use Element Consistency Analysis ...................................................................... 3-70 Table 3.10.B: Supplemental Regulations Consistency Analysis ......................................................... 3-71 Table 3.12.A: Human Response to Different Levels of Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration ............. 3-81 Table 3.12.B: Ambient Base Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 3-83 Table 3.12.C: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ..................................................................... 3-84 Table 3.12.D: Guideline Vibration Potential Threshold Criteria ........................................................ 3-85 Table 3.12.E: Existing Noise Level Measurements ............................................................................ 3-89 Table 3.12.F: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax) .................................. 3-90 Table 3.12.G: Operational Noise Impacts .......................................................................................... 3-93 Table 3.15.A: Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Vicinity of the Project Site .......................... 3-106 Table 3.16.A: House Foods Construction Trip Generation Summary .............................................. 3-109 Table 3.16.B: Existing and Project Vehicle Trip Generation ............................................................ 3-111 Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program ................................................................. 4-3



P:\CGG1801\CEQA\Admin Draft ISMND CC 06192018.docx «06/19/18» iii

APPENDICES (ATTACHED SEPARATELY VIA CD-ROM) Appendix A: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Modeling Outputs, and Health Risk Assessment Appendix B: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix C: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report & Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey Appendix D: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix E: Noise Measurements Appendix F: Assembly Bill 52 Consultation Correspondence



P:\CGG1801\CEQA\Admin Draft ISMND CC 06192018.docx «06/19/18» iv





v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AB Assembly Bill

ACMs asbestos-containing materials

ADT average daily traffic

af acre-feet

amsl above mean sea level

APN Assessor’s Parcel Number

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

AST aboveground storage tank

ASTM ASTM International

Basin South Coast Air Basin

bgs below ground surface

BMPs Best Management Practices

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

California Register California Register of Historical Resources

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CBC California Building Code

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFC California Fire Code

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

City City of Garden Grove

CMP Congestion Management Program

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents

County County of Orange

CSTMP Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan

CWA Clean Water Act

DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan

dB decibel(s)

dBA A-weighted decibel(s)

DCDA double check detector assembly



P:\CGG1801\CEQA\Admin Draft ISMND CC 06192018.docx «06/19/18» vi

ECOS (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Air Regulations

ft foot/feet

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GCC global climate change

GGFD Garden Grove Fire Department

GGPD Garden Grove Police Department

GGUSD Garden Grove Unified School District

GHGs greenhouse gases

gpd gallons per day

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

HFCs hydrofluorocarbons

House Foods House Foods America Corporation

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

in/sec inches per second

IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

L10 noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period



LBPs lead-based paints

Ldn day-night average noise level

Leq equivalent continuous sound level

Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level

LSTs localized significance thresholds

Lv velocity in decibels

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

mgd million gallons per day

MLD Most Likely Descendant

MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program




vii

MND Mitigated Negative Declaration

MRZ Mineral Resource Zones

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MT metric tons

N2O nitrous dioxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan

NGR/NLR Non-Generator/No Longer Regulated

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOI Notice of Intent

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O3 ozone

O&M Operating and Maintenance Plan

OCFA Orange County Fire Authority

OCPL Orange County Public Library

OCSD Orange County Sanitation District

OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority

OCWR OC Waste & Recycling

OPR Office of Planning and Research

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PCE passenger car equivalent

PFCs perfluorocarbons

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

POTWs publicly owned treatment works

PPV Peak particle velocity

PRC Public Resources Code

PUD Planned Unit Development

QISP Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions

RMS root-mean-square

RPPD reduced pressure principle device

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board



P:\CGG1801\CEQA\Admin Draft ISMND CC 06192018.docx «06/19/18» viii

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

sf square foot/feet

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride

SLF Sacred Lands File

SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act

SMARTS Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System

SR-22 State Route 22

SR-91 State Route 91

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

tpd tons per day

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

USC United States Code

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

V RMS velocity amplitude

VdB vibration velocity in decibels

Vref reference velocity amplitude

WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number

WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements

Working Group GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan



P:\CGG1801\CEQA\Admin Draft ISMND CC 06192018.docx «06/19/18» 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the proposed House Foods America Corporation Expansion Project (proposed project) in the City of Garden Grove. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, this IS/MND includes a description of the proposed project, an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts, and findings from the environmental analysis.

This IS/MND evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may result from development of the proposed project. The City of Garden Grove (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for adoption of the IS/MND and approval of the project.

1.1 CONTACT PERSON

Any questions or comments regarding this IS/MND should be referred to:

Mary Medrano, Associate Planner City of Garden Grove, Community and Economic Development Department 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840 Tel: (714) 741-5312 Email: [email protected]




1-2





2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT SITE AND SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1.1 Regional Setting

The project site is located at 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue in the northwestern portion of the City of Garden Grove (City), which itself is located in northern Orange County (County). The City encompasses approximately 18 square miles of land within the County, and is bounded by the Cities of Anaheim, Stanton, and Cypress to the north; the City of Orange to the east; the Cities of Santa Ana, Westminster, and Fountain Valley to the south; and the City of Los Alamitos to the west.

As shown on Figure 2.1, Regional Project Location, regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 22 (SR-22). SR-22 bisects the southern portion of the City in an east-west direction and is approximately 1.7 miles south of the project site.

2.1.2 Project Vicinity and Surrounding Land Uses

The approximately 10.4-acre (451,833 square feet [sf]) project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 131-021-38 and 131-021-39. The site is bounded by Orangewood Avenue to the south, Western Avenue to the east, and industrial uses and surface parking lots to the north and west.

As shown on Figure 2.2, Existing Land Uses, the project site is primarily surrounded by Industrial uses, with commercial uses also present east and west of the project site. Residential uses are present north, west, and east of the project site, with the closest residences located approximately 400 feet (ft) east of the site across Western Avenue.

2.1.3 Existing Project Site

The project site was utilized for agricultural purposes from 1938 until approximately 1981, when two buildings were constructed on the site. The industrial building on the eastern portion of the project site was occupied by Optical Group from 1986 to 1995 and then by Southland Industries since 2008. The western half of the project site has been occupied by the Project/Applicant, House Foods America Corporation (House Foods), since 1997.

In its existing setting, the project site is rectangular in shape and is relatively flat. The current use of the site is industrial, consisting of two buildings, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. The western portion of the project site is developed with a 125,040 sf two-story building (referred to as “Building A”) and a paved area used for the storage of industrial and manufacturing equipment. The eastern portion of the site is developed with an 81,613 sf two-story building (referred to as “Building B”) and loading docks. The two on-site buildings are currently separated by a vegetated wall and a chain-link fence. A chain-link fence also separates the project site from industrial uses north of the property.




2-2


SOURCE Bing Maps:

FEET

300015000

N

FIGURE 2.1

Regional Project Location

I:\CGG1801\G\Regional Location.cdr (3/14/2018)

House Foods Expansion Project

PROJECT

LOCATION

PROJECT

SITE




2-4


ORANGEWOOD AVENUE

WE

ST

ER

N A

VE

NU

E

7351 ORANGEWOOD AVE.

CURRENT HOUSE FOODS LOCATION

7421 ORANGEWOOD AVE.

VACANTFORMER ENVISE LOCATION

BUILDING SYSTEMS DESIGN

AREA OF EXPANSION

+/- 37,000 SF

SITE A

+/- 5 ACRES

SITE B

+/-5.2 ACRES

SOURCE House Foods:

FEET

200010000

N

I:\CGG1801\G\Existing Project Site.cdr (4/5/2018)


FIGURE 2.2

Existing Project Site




2-6





Access to the site is provided via three driveways off Orangewood Avenue. Two additional driveways provide access to the site off Western Avenue; however, access at these two driveway points is restricted to on-site employees through the placement of two mechanically operated gates.

Due to the industrial nature of the project area, sidewalks are not currently provided around the project site. Therefore, pedestrian access to the site is currently limited. There are, however, landscape buffers along Orangewood and Western Avenues.

Refer to Figure 2.3, Existing Project Site, for an aerial photograph of the existing project site and to Figure 2.4, Photographs of the Existing Project Site, for photographs depicting the site under existing conditions.

2.1.4 Existing General Plan Designation and Zoning Classifications

As shown on Figure 2.5, General Plan Land Uses, the project site is currently designated as Industrial on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. The Industrial designation encourages industrial uses, such as warehousing and distribution or business parks, and more intensive industrial uses, such as manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, processing, trucking, warehousing and distribution, and servicing.

The project site is located within the Irvine Industrial Complex, which itself is located in the northwestern area of the City of Garden Grove. The entire Irvine Industrial Complex area is currently zoned as Planned Unit Development-103-76 (PUD-103-76) (refer to Figure 2.6, Zoning Map). PUD-103-76 was adopted in 1976 and serves as the primary document regulating development on the project site and in the surrounding area.

The project site is located within Area 4 (Industrial) of PUD-103-76. According to PUD-103-76, the permitted uses within Area 4 include the following: research activities, manufacturing, distribution and storage, warehousing, construction industries, service industries, support uses (e.g., commercial sales, photo engraving, and printing), accessory uses and structures related to a permitted use, and agriculture as a continuation of the existing land uses. Conditionally permitted uses include utility service yards, furniture warehouse sales, rug and carpet sales, building products and/or sales, extraction of natural resources, and heliports.

2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

2.2.1 Development Proposal

As illustrated on Figure 2.7, Conceptual Site Plan, the Project/Applicant proposes the expansion of the existing House Foods tofu manufacturing operation (currently utilizing Building A) to include Building B, and to construct an expansion area of approximately 36,763 sf connecting the two existing buildings on the project site (the Central Building). Refer to Table 2.A, below.

Building A, currently being occupied by House Foods, will not be undergoing any interior improvements. The first floor includes product refrigeration storage areas, packaging rooms, material warehousing space, office areas, soybean treatment and soaking rooms, and a shipping and receiving area.




2-8


Service Layer Credits: © 2018 MicrosoftCorporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES(2018) Distribution Airbus DS © 2018 HERE

SOURCE: Bing (2015); SCAG (2012)I:\CGG1801\GIS\MXD\EXLU.mxd (4/5/2018)

FIGURE 2.3

House Foods Expansion ProjectExisting Land Uses

0 225 450FEET

LEGENDProject Location Existing Land Uses

Single Family ResidentialMulti-Family ResidentialCommercial and ServicesMixed Commercial and Industrial

EducationIndustrialOpen Space and RecreationTransportation, Communications, and Utilities




2-10


View of existing House Foods building on western portion of the project site facing north.View of existing industrial building on eastern portion of the project site facing north.

Existing industrial equipment on the eastern portion of the site. Existing industrial equipment on the eastern portion of the site.

FIGURE 2.4

Photographs of the Existing Project Site

I:\CGG1801\G\Photos-Existing site.cdr (2/14/2018)





2-12


SOURCE RBF Consulting (2008):

FEET

300015000

N

FIGURE 2.5

General Plan Land Uses

I:\CGG1801\G\GP Land Use.cdr (3/14/2018)


PROJECT

SITE




2-14


Service Layer Credits: © 2018 MicrosoftCorporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES(2018) Distribution Airbus DS © 2018 HERE

SOURCE: Bing (2015); SCAG (2012)I:\CGG1801\GIS\MXD\Zoning.mxd (2/1/2018)

FIGURE 2.6

House Foods Expansion ProjectZoning Map

0 225 450FEET

Project LocationGarden Grove Zoning

Planned Unit Development

Cypress ZoningCommercial Neighborhood ZonePlanned Community Zone - Warland/Cypress Business CenterPlanned Residential Development ZonePublic and Semi-public ZoneResidential Single Family Zone

Stanton ZoningCommercial Neighborhood ZoneCommercial General Zone Single Family ResidentialIndustrial General Zone

Multi-Family ResidentialOpen Space Buffer ZonePlanned DevelopmentPublic Institutional ZoneSolid Waster Transfer Zone




2-16


G GG G G

W WW W W

GW

GW

GW

GW

GW

GW

GW

SS

S

S

S

S

SS

GW

GW

GW

GW

GW

TT

TT

T

T

T

T

TT

T

CATV

CATV

CATV

CATV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CATV CATVCATV CATV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CA

TV

CATV CATVCATV CATV

CATV CATVCATV CATV

TT

T

TT

T

TT

T

T

T

T

T

TT

TT

12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W12"

W

3"G

3"G

3"G

3"G

3"G

3"G 3"G3"G 3"G 3"G

18"S 18"S18"S 18"S 18"S

8"S

8"S

8"S

8"S

8"S

8"S

8"S

8"S

8"S

8"S

21"S

21"S

21"S

21"S

21"S

A

B-A

B-B.8

30'-0

"17'-0

"11

ST

ALLS

@9'

99'-0

"50'-0

"2

ST

ALLS

@9'

18'-0

"5'- 0

"10

ST

ALLS

@9'

90'-0

"18'-0

"8

ST

ALLS

@9'

72'-0

"67'-0

"

32'-0

"7

ST

ALLS

@9'

63'-0

"5'- 0

"

10

ST

ALLS

@9'

90'-0

"5'- 0

"10

ST

ALLS

@9'

90'-0

"5'- 0

"7

ST

ALLS

9'

63'-0

"16'-0

"30'-0

"

25'-0"5'-0" 29'-9 1/4" ±

19'-0" 19'-0"12'-3"

12'-11 3/4" ±

11

ST

ALLS

@9'

99'-0

"8'- 0

"10'-2

1/4

"±

19'-0" 5'-0" 19'-0"

25'-0" 43'-0" 25'-1 3/4" ±

5 COMP STALLS @ 9'45'-0" 5'-0"

16 STALLS @ 9'144'-0" 5'-0"

6 STALLS @ 9'54'-0" 5'-0"

6 STALLS @ 9'54'-0"

12'-9 1/2" ±5 STALLS @ 9'

45'-0"

5'-0"

ST

ALLS

(E)

2C

OM

PA

CT

ST

ALLS

(E)

3C

OM

PA

CT

(E)

6C

OM

PA

CT

ST

ALLS

(E)

7C

OM

PA

CT

ST

ALLS

(E)

7C

OM

PA

CT

ST

ALLS

STALLS(E) 4 COMPACT (E) 10 COMPACT STALLS

17'-0"

19'-0"

38'-1"

18'-11"

17'-0"

2'-0"

38'-1"

ALIGN

(E) 5 STALLS

83'-10"

99'-9"

58'-3"

4S

TA

LLS

@9'

36'-0"

12'-0"

5S

TA

LLS

@9'

45'-0"

10 COMP STALLS @ EQ SPACE(E) 87'-2" ±

R10' - 0"

ALIG

N

107'-8"19'-0" MIN

(E) 10 STALLS(E) 10 STALLS(E) 10 STALLS

(E)

10

ST

ALLS

(E)

2S

TA

LLS

ST

ALLS

(E)

2A

DA

(E)

10

ST

ALLS

(E)

10

ST

ALLS

(E)

9S

TA

LLS

(E)

8S

TA

LLS

(E)

9S

TA

LLS

(E) 4 STALLS (E) 4 STALLS (E) 5 STALLS

4 ADA STALLS(E) 1 ADA VAN STALL &

(E) 5 STALLS (E) 5 STALLS (E) 7 STALLS (E) 13 STALLS

(E) 2 STALLS

VAN STALL(E) 1 ADA

(E) 8 STALLS

R17

' -0"

R17' - 0"9

'-3"

±

25'-0"

R34' -

0"

R 42' - 0"

(1) ADA STALL(E) 9'-0 3/4" ±

6'-9"

25'-0"

CLR

(E) 5 STALLS148'-6"

19'-0" 19'-0"

9S

TA

LLS

@9'

81'-0

"

4 COMP STALLS @ 9'36'-0" 11'-10" 16'-0" 6'-4"

26'-0"

(E)

62'-3"

±(E

)60'-9

1/2

"±

(E) 62'-2 1/4" ±HOU FOODS FACILITY

(E) 256'-0"

1'-2"NEW BUILDING EXPANSION (VARIES)

142'-7" (±) ~ 140'-7" (±)

HOUSE FOODS FACILITY(E) 256'-0"(E) 62'-6" ±

3'-0"

8'-0"

E01

E02

E03

E04

E05

E06E07

E08E08

NE

WB

UIL

DIN

GE

XP

AN

SIO

N

308'-11"

62'-2

1/4

"±

211'-11

1/4

"±

E09 E09 E09 E09 E09E09

N01

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N02

N03

N04

N04

N05

84'-0"

N06

UP

N07

N08

N08

E10

N09

65'-1"

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE

WE

ST

ER

NA

VE

NU

E

19'-0" 19'-0"

NEW SEWER LINE SHALL BE INSTALLEDBY CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

NEW 5' DIAMETERMANHOLE SHALL BEINSTALLED BY CITYOF GARDEN GROVE

A092

2

(E)

88' -9

3/4

"±

AD

JA

CE

NT

BU

ILD

ING

(E)

318'-9

1/2

"±

(E)

175'-4

3/4

"±

(E) 59'-9" ±

ADJACENT BUILDING(E) 255'-11 1/4" ±

47'-11"

48'-0"

48'-0"

55'-6"

25'-6"

NEW BUILDING EXPANSION (VARIES)142'-7" (±) ~ 140'-7" (±)

(E) 91'-10 3/4" ±

ADJACENT BUILDING(E) 223'-11 1/4" ±

73'-0 3/4" ±

SOURCE Kajima Associates, Inc.:

FEET

110550

N

FIGURE 2.7

Conceptual Site Plan

I:\CGG1801\G\Site Plan.cdr (4/4/2018)


CurrentHouse Foods Location

Building A

CurrentHouse Foods Location

Building A

CurrentVacant Building

Building B

CurrentVacant Building

Building B

Area ofExpansion/

Proposed Project

Area ofExpansion/

Proposed Project




2-18





Table 2.A: Existing & Proposed Buildings on the Project Site

Buildings Square Footage (sf) Status

Existing Buildings

Building A (western portion of the site) 125,040 To Remain

Building B (eastern portion of the site) 81,613 To Remain

Proposed New Building

Central Building 36,763 New Structure

Total Building Square Footage (Post-Project Conditions)

Buildings A & B; Central Building 243,416 At Project Completion

sf = square footage

The second floor includes offices, conference rooms, a break room, men’s and women’s bathrooms, warehousing space, and observation balconies.

Building B (which is currently vacant) will not be undergoing any interior improvements. The first floor includes offices, training rooms, conference rooms, two men’s and two women’s bathrooms, and warehousing space. The existing metal shop areas, used by the previous tenant, will be used as additional warehousing space by House Foods. The second story consists of offices, a breakroom, a conference room, a telephone and data room, an open office area, and two men’s and two women’s bathrooms.

The proposed Central Building expansion area would include a cooler storage area, a mechanical equipment room, a staging area, and a casing room in the northern area of the building, as well as a soaking room, a room dedicated to making okara,1 and a blower room in the southern area of the building. The southern area of the building would also include a vestibule connecting the central area of the building to the building entrance. The central area of the structure would be utilized as a manufacturing area.

The proposed connection between the buildings would be one-story, approximately 34 to 35 ft in height, and approximately 36,763 sf in size (the Central Building). A loading dock area would be located at the back of the proposed building near the northern boundary of the project site. The total area of the finished structure (including Buildings A and B and the expansion area) would be 243,416 sf.

The project also proposes the reconfiguration of parking along the southern and northern site boundaries, as well as the addition of employee parking along the eastern boundary. The existing parking along the western boundary will remain following project implementation.

The project would allow for the existing four loading bays at the southeastern boundary of Building A to remain in place, and would install four additional loading bays at the northeastern boundary of the proposed building.

1 In the production of tofu, “okara” consists of tofu pulp, including parts of the soybean that remain after it has been

pureed and filtered.




2-20

The existing trash enclosure area located at the northwestern corner of Building A would remain in place following implementation of the proposed project.

Refer to Figure 2.7 for an illustration of key components proposed as part of the project. The trash enclosure of Building B will be removed as part of the project.

Following project implementation, the total number of employees on the site would increase from 180 to 216 (72 employees each in three shifts, an increase of approximately 12 additional employees per shift).

2.2.2 Building and Site Design

2.2.2.1 Building Design

The proposed project would incorporate architectural influences from Contemporary and Modern architectural design styles and would result in a cohesive design for the entire structure. The addition will match the existing architectural style and exterior stucco finishes, and will match the existing height of approximately 34.5 ft.

2.2.2.2 Parking

Based on the PUD-103-76 parking requirements for office, warehouse, and manufacturing uses, the proposed project would be required to provide a total of 350 spaces. Per the site plan, the proposed project includes 355 parking spaces, exceeding the PUD-103-76 requirement by five spaces.

2.2.2.3 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access

Existing access to the project site is provided by three driveways on Orangewood Avenue and two driveways on Western Avenue. The project proposes to permanently vacate the easternmost driveway along Orangewood Avenue; however, the central driveway on Orangewood Avenue would remain in place and would serve as the main entrance to the site for passenger vehicles entering and exiting the site.

The existing westernmost driveway along Orangewood Avenue and the driveways off Western Avenue would also provide access to the site following project implementation; however, use of these driveways would be restricted to trucks only. The westernmost driveway off Orangewood Avenue would be an “entrance only” driveway and would lead to an internal roadway along the western and northern boundaries of the site. This internal roadway would ultimately connect to the “exit only” driveway off Western Avenue. Provision of the restricted entrance- and exit-only driveways would serve to minimize vehicular conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles on the site and provide improved connectivity for trucks moving across the site.

The project proposes retaining the existing chain-link fence along the northern boundary of the site and installing a 7 ft high fence that would traverse the project site in a north-south fashion and would extend from the northern boundary of the site to the northern boundary of Building B. The fence would be approximately 140 ft in length and would include an automatic 35 ft sliding gate that would allow employee access to the northern portion of the site. The fence and automatic gate would match the existing fencing along the northern boundary of the site.




As previously stated, the project does not propose the addition of any sidewalks along the perimeter of the site due to the industrial nature of the project area.

2.2.2.4 Landscaping

The proposed project would allow for existing landscaping, including trees and planters, on the western portion of the site (surrounding Building A) to remain in its existing setting. All landscaping planters and trees along the current property line between the existing buildings would be removed as part of the proposed project.

Landscaping improvements on the eastern portion of the site (surrounding Building B) include the following: (1) the reconfiguration of planters along the northern boundary of Building B to provide for truck turnaround and backup, (2) the removal of the landscaping on the eastern boundary of the site to allow for additional on-site parking, (3) the replacement of approximately 30 ft of landscaping along the eastern boundary of the property line with new landscaping (which would meet the 18 ft minimum required landscaping street setback, as outlined in PUD-103-76), (4) the installation of additional trees on the northern and eastern boundaries of Building B, and in the proposed parking planters on the eastern portion of the site,1 and (5) the installation of a bio-retention basin near the site entrance along Orangewood Avenue.

2.2.2.5 Transit Service.

Transit service is provided within the project vicinity by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Specifically, OCTA runs Routes 25, 29, and 54 within the project vicinity. Route 25 operates along Knott Avenue, originates in the City of Fullerton, and terminates in the City of Huntington Beach. Route 29 operates along Beach Boulevard, originates in the City of La Habra, and also terminates in the City of Huntington Beach. Route 54 operates along Chapman Avenue, originates in the City of Garden Grove, and terminates in the City of Orange.

An existing railway easement is located approximately 750 ft east of the project site. The rail line was formerly operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (now known as Metro) as a passenger railway; however, service has been discontinued since the 1950s.

2.2.2.6 Lighting

As illustrated by Figure 2.8, Conceptual Lighting Plan, outdoor lighting included as part of future development on the project site would be typical of industrial uses and would consist of wall-mounted lighting at 23 ft, as well as pole-mounted lights (25 ft in height) within the parking lot and along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill. The location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards established in the City’s Municipal Code.

1 The property zoning requires one tree per every 30 linear feet at interior property boundaries, and one

tree per every five parking stalls in the parking area. The proposed improvements will satisfy said requirements.




2-22


SOURCE Kajima Associates, Inc.:

FEET

110550

N

FIGURE 2.8

Conceptual Lighting Plan

I:\CGG1801\G\Lighting Plan.cdr (3/14/2018)





2-24





2.2.2.7 Sustainability Features

The proposed project includes the following sustainability features:

An underground cistern that would be used for rainwater harvesting in the irrigation of new and existing landscaping.

The installation of high-efficiency faucets on all hand sinks, as well as light-emitting diode (LED) interior lighting fixtures within the proposed building expansion area.

The retention of existing solar panels on the roof of Building A. No additional solar panels are proposed at this time.

2.2.3 Infrastructure Improvements

The following infrastructure improvements are included as part of the proposed project as Conditions of Approval:

2.2.3.1 Water

1. With the exception of one fire hydrant, which would be removed as part of the project, the existing on-site fire hydrant supply lines will remain in place. These hydrants and fire hydrant supply lines meet the Garden Grove Fire Department’s requirements and would accommodate the existing on-site buildings and the new building expansion.

2. New water service installations, that would be equal to, or less than, 2 inches in diameter, will be installed by the City of Garden Grove at the Project/Applicant’s expense. Installation shall be scheduled upon payment of applicable fees, unless otherwise noted. Fire services and larger water services (3 inches and larger) shall be installed by the Project/Applicant’s Construction Contractor per City Standards.

3. Water meters shall be located within the Orangewood Avenue right-of-way. Fire services and large water services (3 inches and larger) shall be installed by a Construction Contractor with a class A or C-34 license, per City water standards, and inspected by and approved by the Water Services inspector.

4. A Reduced Pressure Principle Device (RPPD) backflow prevention device shall be installed for meter protection. The landscape system shall also have an RPPD device. Any carbonation dispensing equipment shall have an RPPD device. Installation shall be per City Standards and shall be tested by a certified backflow device tester immediately after installation. The cross connection inspector shall be notified for inspection after the installation is completed. The owner shall have the RPPD device tested once per year thereafter by a certified backflow device tester, and the test results shall be submitted to the City Public Works, Water Services Division. The property owner must open a water account upon installation of the RPPD device.

5. Any new or existing water valve located within the new concrete driveway or sidewalk construction shall be reconstructed per City Standard B-753.




2-26

6. Any existing meter and service located within the new driveway(s) shall be relocated at the owner’s expense.

7. New fire service, if needed, shall have an aboveground backflow device with a double check detector assembly (DCDA). The device shall be tested immediately after installation and once per year thereafter by a certified backflow device tester, and the results shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works, Water Services Division. The device shall be located on private property and is the responsibility of the property owner. The aboveground assembly shall be screened from public view as required by the Planning Division.

8. The location and number of fire hydrants shall be as required by the Water Services Division and the Fire Department.

2.2.3.2 Sewer

1. Commercial food uses of any type shall require the installation of an approved grease control device1 prior to obtaining a business license.

2. Prior to the City permit issuance, a grease trap2 location must be approved by the Orange County Health Department as evidenced by its stamp on the project plans. The owner shall maintain comprehensive grease trap maintenance records and shall make them available to the City of Garden Grove upon demand.

3. Food grinders (garbage disposal devices) are prohibited per Ordinance 6 of the Garden Grove Sanitary District Code of Regulations. Existing units are to be removed.

4. The owner shall install new sewer lateral with clean out at the right-of-way line. The lateral in the public right-of-way shall be 6 inches minimum in diameter and extra-strength vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with wedge-lock joints.

5. The Construction Contractor shall abandon any existing unused sewer lateral(s) at the street right-of-way on the property owner’s side. The sewer pipe shall be capped with an expansion sewer plug and encased in concrete.

2.2.3.3 Gas

1. The project includes the installation of a gas line that would be 2 inches in diameter. This gas line would ultimately connect to the existing gas line in Western Avenue.

2.2.4 Implementation/Phasing

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over the course of 13.5 months, beginning in mid-2018 with the project opening in the fall of 2019. Construction would occur in two

1 The grease control device would collect, contain, and remove food waste from wastewater generated on

the site. 2 The comprehensive grease trap would intercept greases and solids generated on the site before they

enter the wastewater disposal system on the site.




phases. The first phase involves the demolition of site work and the completion of all site work improvements, including new and reconfigured parking areas, along the northern boundary, and on the eastern and southern sides of the property developed with Building B. The second phase involves the addition between and connecting the two existing buildings.

2.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS

2.3.1 Discretionary Actions

Development of the proposed project would require various approvals and permits from local, State, and federal agencies with jurisdiction over specific elements of the project. The discretionary approvals by the City of Garden Grove, as the Lead Agency, would include the following:

Site Plan Review: Site Plan Review allows multiple departments in the City to analyze the utilities, building, safety, streets, parking, landscaping, fire access, land use compatibility, and overall site design in order to allow approve the construction of the proposed project and make recommendations based on staff review.

Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration: Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would demonstrate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would provide evidence that the proposed project would not have a significant unavoidable impact on the environment. Adoption of the MND will also include adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which outlines mitigation measures that are required to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts.

Lot Line Adjustment: A Lot-Line Adjustment would relocate the lot lines to merge the two properties into a single parcel.

2.3.2 Future Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals

Future discretionary and ministerial approvals include, but are not limited to, the following:

Building Permits: In accordance with Chapter 18.08 of the City’s Municipal Code, a Building Permit would be required to allow for the construction of the proposed building expansion on the project site.

Grading Permits: In accordance with Section 6.40.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, a Grading Permit would be required to allow for grading activities on the site prior to building construction activities on the project site.

Signage Permits: In accordance with Section 9.20.030 of the City’s Municipal Code, a permit is required to allow for the removal of the existing “Envise” monument sign and the “Southland” directional sign on the project site.

Encroachment Permits: Encroachment permits would be required for the removal of existing unused sewer laterals and the installation of a new sewer lateral within the right-of-way along Orangewood Avenue.




2-28

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP): A Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be required to be prepared consistent with the North Orange County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document (December 2013), the County of Orange Water Quality Management Plan Template (May 2011), and the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) (2003). The Final WQMP would also be required to be submitted to the City of Garden Grove Community and Economic Development Department Director for review and approval.

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan: A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required to be prepared in compliance with the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. R4-2014-0024 NPDES Permit No. CAS004003; Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would be required to be submitted to the City of Garden Grove Community and Economic Development Department Director for review and approval.





3-2





EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

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

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

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

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063 (c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identity the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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




3-4

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

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.




3.1 AESTHETICS

Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?

(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Impact Analysis:

(a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact. California State Government Code Section 65560(b)(3) stipulates that city and county General Plans address “…Open space for outdoor recreation, including but not limited to, areas of outstanding scenic, historic and cultural value; areas particularly suited for park and recreation purposes, including access to lakes shores, beaches, and rivers, and streams; and areas that serve as links between major recreation and open-space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails, and scenic highway corridors…”

A scenic vista is the view of an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing from a certain vantage point. It is usually viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access.1

A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location.

The City of Garden Grove (City) General Plan does not identify specific areas of importance for visual quality or scenic resources within the City. Rather, the City included a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element in its General Plan because providing adequate parkland, recreation opportunities, and management and conservation of limited open space resources is a priority to the urbanized City.

1 Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Visual Resources Management Guide.




3-6

The current use of the project site is industrial, consisting of two buildings, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. The western portion of the project site is developed with Building A, a 125,040-square-foot (sf) two-story building, and a paved area used for the storage of industrial and manufacturing equipment. The eastern portion of the site is developed with Building B, an 81,613 sf two-story building, and loading docks. Buildings A and B are currently separated by a vegetated wall and a chain-link fence. In addition, a chain-link fence separates the project site from industrial uses north of the property. The approximately 10.4-acre project site consists of two separate parcels, which are bounded by Orangewood Avenue to the south, Western Avenue to the east, and industrial uses and surface parking lots to the north and west. The project site is primarily surrounded by industrial uses; however, commercial uses are also present east and west of the project site, and residential uses are present in areas to the north, west, and east of the project site (refer to Figure 2.2, Existing Land Uses). The surrounding views comprise a developed suburban environment that is built out. No scenic vistas are visible from the project site.

No public parks are located on, or adjacent to, the project site. The park closest to the project site is Chapman Sports Complex, which is approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the project site at 11700 Knott Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to damage scenic vistas from public parks, and no mitigation is required. Refer to Section 3.15, Recreation, for additional discussion and analysis of potential impacts related to public parks in the City.

The proposed project would be located in a fully urbanized area of the City. The proposed project includes the construction of a one-story structure (the Central Building), which would connect the two existing buildings on the site and increase the overall square footage by 36,763 sf. The proposed Central Building would have a maximum height of 35 feet (ft), which would be consistent with the existing height of Buildings A and B currently present on the project site. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by a mix of low-rise industrial, commercial, and residential structures, and the majority of structures adjacent to the site are one and two stories in height. While no designated scenic vistas are visible from the project site or surrounding properties, the proposed project would not block views of scenic vistas because the project would not be substantially taller than the existing surrounding uses. Therefore, because the proposed project constitutes an expansion of existing buildings in an already built-out area of the City and no identified scenic vistas are within its proximity, the proposed project does not have the potential to damage scenic vistas, and no mitigation would be required.

(b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?

No Impact. The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Landscape Architecture Program administers the Scenic Highway Program contained in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260–263. State Highways are classified as either Officially Listed or Eligible. The nearest State-designated scenic highway to the project site is State Route 91 (SR-91), which is




approximately 13 miles northeast of the project site.1 Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to damage resources within a State-designated scenic highway.

In addition, there are no existing aesthetic or visual resources located on the project site or in the surrounding vicinity that have been designated in the City’s General Plan. No existing scenic rock outcroppings are located within the project limits. Due to their recent age (37 years; both buildings were constructed in 1981), none of the existing structures on the project site are eligible for listing as historic resources. As part of the proposed project, all of the ornamental trees and landscaping on the eastern boundary of the site would be removed to allow for additional on-site parking. The project proposes to replace these trees and landscaping with approximately 30 ft of new landscaping along the eastern boundary of the property, as well as along the northern and eastern boundaries of Building B and in the proposed parking lot planters on the eastern portion of the site. New landscaping would include a variety of 24-inch box trees, shrubs, groundcover, and decorative gravel. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to scenic resources. No mitigation is required.

(c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within a fully developed urban environment, and the area is characterized by a variety of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The current use of the site is industrial, consisting of two buildings, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. The two on-site buildings are currently separated by a vegetated wall and a chain-link fence. A chain-link fence also separates the project site from industrial uses north of the property.

The proposed project involves the construction of a 34.5 ft high one-story Central Building, which would connect two existing buildings and increase the overall square footage by 36,763 sf. A loading dock area would be located at the back of the proposed Central Building near the northern boundary of the project site. The proposed project would retain the existing chain-link fence along the northern boundary of the site and would also install a fence 7 ft in height that that would traverse the project site in a north-south fashion and extend from the northern boundary of the site to the northern boundary of Building B. The fence would be approximately 140 ft in length and include an automatic 35 ft sliding gate that would secure the northern portion of the site. The fence and automatic gate would match the existing fencing along the northern boundary of the site. The proposed fencing would not visually screen the proposed or existing loading dock areas; however, industrial uses to the north would not be sensitive to this project component due to the presence of similar facilities and uses surrounding the site. Therefore, due to the existing condition of the site and adjacent land uses, visual screening would not be necessary to reduce aesthetic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.

1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ (accessed April 4, 2018).




3-8

All of the ornamental trees and landscaping on the eastern boundary of the site would be removed to allow for an on-site parking lot. The project proposes to replace these trees and landscaping with approximately 30 ft of new landscaping along the eastern boundary of the property line, as well as along the northern and eastern boundaries of Building B and in the proposed parking lot planters on the eastern portion of the site.

Construction. Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site construction activities that would be visible to travelers along Orangewood Avenue and Western Avenue. Construction activities for the proposed project would be temporary and would occur at the center of the site, where the proposed Central Building would be located, as well as along the eastern side of the project site, where the proposed parking lot and associated landscaping would be located. Temporary fencing would be placed along the perimeter of the site to screen construction activities from the street level and from sensitive receptors to the east (residential uses across Western Avenue). It is recognized that construction fencing could serve as a target for graffiti if not appropriately monitored. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AES-1 is proposed and would require that temporary barriers and walkways be maintained in a visually attractive manner throughout the construction period, and that any graffiti and trash be removed in a timely manner. This mitigation requiring the maintenance of construction fencing would ensure that impacts associated with unwanted debris and graffiti would be less than significant.

Operation. As described above, the visual character immediately surrounding the project site is representative of a fully built-out urban area containing a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The proposed project would incorporate architectural influences from Contemporary and Modern architectural design styles and would result in a cohesive design for the entire structure. The addition will match the existing architectural style, the exterior stucco finishes, and the height (approximately 34.5 ft) of the existing buildings on the site. The proposed Central Building would only be visible from public vantage points on adjacent roadways, including Orangewood Avenue and Western Avenue. Existing trees along Orangewood Avenue, as well as proposed trees along Western Avenue, would visually shield the existing on-site structures from passing vehicles and pedestrians along the adjacent roadways. As such, the proposed height of the building and massing associated with the proposed project would be visually consistent with the existing urban environment in this area.

Landscaped setbacks along the eastern and southern boundaries of the project site consist of grassy lawn, several mature trees, and ornamental vegetation. Similar landscaping occurs throughout the on-site parking lots adjacent to both buildings. The two existing buildings are currently separated by parking areas, a vegetated wall, and a chain-link fence traversing the project site in a north-south direction. As part of the project, the existing landscaped area along the eastern boundary of the site would be replaced with on-site parking, a 25 ft driveway connecting to the parking lot along the southern boundary of the site, and an 18 ft wide ornamental landscape buffer between the new parking spaces and the property line. The landscaping along the eastern boundary of the project site would be replaced with a variety of 24-inch box trees, shrubs, groundcover, and decorative gravel. Similar landscaping would be planted on the northern and eastern boundaries of Building B and in the proposed parking planters on the eastern portion of the site. In addition, the vegetated wall between the two




existing buildings would be removed to accommodate the proposed one-story tofu manufacturing plant expansion.

In summary, the proposed project would involve the construction of a structure connecting two existing buildings that would be similar in design and scale as existing industrial buildings on the project site. As a result of implementation of the proposed project, the existing visual character of the project site would remain largely unchanged. Industrial uses, as well as commercial and residential uses, already exist in the vicinity of the project site. Consequently, the proposed project would not fundamentally alter the surrounding land use character. In addition, the proposed project would be similar to the height and mass of the surrounding development and the proposed architecture would be consistent with the architectural styles of the surrounding properties (e.g., industrial structures in the area exhibit examples of Contemporary and Modern architectural styles). Furthermore, the landscaping would be similar to the existing landscaping on the project site and the surrounding area. Therefore, because the proposed project is an expansion of an existing development in an already built-out neighborhood and would be compatible with the surrounding development, the proposed project would not degrade the character or quality of the project site, nor would the proposed project contribute to an overall degradation of the visual character or quality of the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts related to the degradation of the visual character or quality of the site would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measure:

The following measure would reduce short-term, construction-related aesthetics impacts resulting from the proposed project to a less than significant level.

Measure AES-1 Maintenance of Construction Barriers: During construction, the Construction Contractor shall ensure, through appropriate notices and daily visual inspections, that no unauthorized materials are displayed on any temporary construction barriers or temporary pedestrian walkways, and that any such temporary barriers and walkways are maintained in a visually attractive manner. In the event that unauthorized materials or markings are discovered on any temporary construction barrier or temporary pedestrian walkway, the Construction Contractor shall remove such items within 48 hours.

(d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impact. The impact of nighttime lighting depends upon the type of use affected, the proximity to the affected use, the intensity of specific lighting, and the background or ambient level of the combined nighttime lighting. Nighttime ambient light levels may vary considerably depending on the age, condition, and abundance of point-of-light sources present in a particular view. The use of exterior lighting for security and aesthetic illumination of architectural features may contribute to ambient nighttime lighting conditions.




3-10

The spillover of light onto adjacent properties has the potential to interfere with certain activities, including vision, sleep, privacy, and general enjoyment of the natural nighttime condition. Light-sensitive uses include residential, some commercial and institutional uses, and, in some situations, natural areas. Changes in nighttime lighting may become significant if a proposed project substantially increases ambient lighting conditions beyond its property line, or if the project lighting routinely spills over into adjacent light-sensitive land use areas.

Reflective light (glare) is caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces (e.g., window glass) or other reflective materials. Glass and other materials can have many different reflectance characteristics. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. Reflective light is common in urban areas. Glare generally does not result in the illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance.

Nighttime illumination impacts are evaluated in terms of the project’s net change in ambient lighting conditions and proximity to light-sensitive land uses. The site is currently developed with two buildings and associated parking areas. The project site is surrounded by a variety of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Sensitive receptors subject to potential light and glare impacts in the vicinity of the site include residential uses located 400 ft to the east, across Western Avenue. Other sources of light on and adjacent to the project site include exterior lighting from adjacent properties, streetlights, and vehicle headlights.

Construction. Although construction activities would occur primarily during daylight hours, construction activities could extend into the evening hours, as permitted by the City’s Municipal Code.1 Lighting required during the construction period could generate light spillover in the vicinity of the project site. Any construction-related illumination would be shielded (shielded lighting contains a hood over the light source to direct it and to prevent light trespass) to the extent feasible and would consist of the minimum lighting required for safety and security purposes only and would occur only for the duration required for the temporary construction process. By shielding lighting and using the minimum lighting necessary for safety and security purposes, light resulting from construction activities would not spillover onto adjacent properties and would not substantially impact sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area, or interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and light impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Operation. The proposed project would be located within a developed area of the City, which currently emits lighting that is typical for an urban area (i.e., industrial, residential, and commercial uses). Existing lighting on the project site includes exterior lighting of the two on-site buildings and associated parking lots.

1 Chapter 8.47, Noise Control, of the City of Garden Grove Municipal Code, allows for construction between

the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.




The proposed project would include lighting that would be typical of industrial uses consisting of wall-mounted lighting at 23 ft and 25 ft tall pole-mounted lights within the parking lots along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill, and the location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards established in Section 9.16.040.200, Parking Dimensions and Design Lay-Outs, of the City’s Municipal Code and Section V, General Development Standards, of the Irvine Industrial Complex Supplemental Regulations (1992). Furthermore, industrial uses present to the north of the site are not considered a “sensitive” use with respect to aesthetic impacts and would not be negatively impacted by the installation of on-site lighting associated with project implementation.

Daytime glare can result from natural sunlight reflecting from a shiny surface that would interfere with the performance of an off-site activity, such as the operation of a motor vehicle. Reflective surfaces can be associated with window glass and polished surfaces. The finished facades of the proposed project’s buildings would primarily consist of concrete that has low reflectivity. The project would also install low-reflective glass in the proposed project’s windows. Therefore, impacts related to daytime glare would not occur.

Nighttime glare sources from the proposed project could include parking lot lighting and vehicle headlights. The nighttime glare produced by the exterior lighting and vehicular headlights would be similar to the existing nighttime glare produced by the surrounding industrial and commercial uses and would not be considered substantial or capable of affecting nighttime views. Nighttime glare would also be shielded by the presence of mature trees and landscaping along the eastern and southern boundaries and within the interior portions of the project site.

Summary. Lighting provided as part of the proposed project would be largely consistent with the type and intensity of existing lighting in the project vicinity. The final lighting plan for the project would be subject to review and approval and part of the site plan review process, but compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and the provisions of the Irvine Industrial Complex Supplemental Regulations would also ensure that all exterior lighting would be directed, positioned, or shielded in such a manner as to not illuminate residences in the project vicinity. As such, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No mitigation would be required.




3-12

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?

Impact Analysis:

(a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

No Impact. The project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.1 The surrounding area is characterized by industrial, residential, and commercial uses. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or any other type of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur, and no mitigation is required.

1 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Website: https://maps.

conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed February 7, 2018).




(b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The Land Use Element of the City of Garden Grove’s (City) General Plan designates the project site as Industrial. The project site is also zoned Industrial (Area 4) within the Irvine Industrial Complex area of the City (Planned Unit Development [PUD] 103-76). The project site is not zoned or currently used for agricultural purposes, and there are no Williamson Act contracts in effect for the site. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act contracts. No mitigation is required.

(c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

No Impact. As previously stated, the project site is designated Industrial and zoned Industrial (Area 4) within PUD-103-76. Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production. As a result, no impacts would occur. No mitigation is required.

(d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The project site is located in an area of the City that is characterized by an urban setting. No forest or timberland exists on the project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As a result, no impacts would occur. No mitigation is required.

(e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?

No Impact. The project site is currently developed with an industrial/manufacturing building and a vacant industrial/warehouse building, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland on or off the project site to nonagricultural use because there are no agricultural uses on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. No mitigation is required.




3-14

3.3 AIR QUALITY

Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion:

The following section is based on air quality modeling and analysis conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) (April 2018). The air quality modeling worksheets are included in Appendix A.

(a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the City of Garden Grove (City), which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality within the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) in March 2017.

The main purpose of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is to describe air pollution control strategies to be taken by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area. A nonattainment area is considered to have worse air quality than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and/or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), as defined in the federal Clean Air Act. The Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standard, and in attainment/maintenance for the federal PM10, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards.

Consistency with the 2016 AQMP for the Basin would be achieved if a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Per the SCAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook (April 1993), there are two main indicators of a project’s consistency with the applicable AQMP: (1) whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air




quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP; and (2) whether the project would exceed the 2016 AQMP’s assumptions for the final year for the AQMP. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities. For the proposed project to be consistent with the AQMP, the pollutants emitted from the project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality. Additionally, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented and are shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, a project may be deemed consistent with the AQMP.

The project site is currently designated as Industrial on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. The Industrial designation encourages industrial uses, such as warehousing and distribution or business parks, and more intensive industrial uses, such as manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, processing, trucking, warehousing and distribution, and servicing. The proposed project involves the expansion of the existing House Foods tofu manufacturing operation, and the construction of an expansion area of approximately 36,763 sf connecting the two existing buildings on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP. Additionally, the proposed project would not be considered a “significant project” affecting air quality in the region. Furthermore, as discussed in Responses 3.3(b) through 3.3(e), emissions generated by the proposed project would be below emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2015) and would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. No mitigation would be required.

(b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less Than Significant Impact. The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if a project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2015). The criteria include emission thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and conformity with the existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) or consistency with the current AQMP. A summary of the specific criteria established by the SCAQMD is presented in Table 3.3.A below.

Projects in the Basin with emissions that exceed any of the mass daily emission thresholds are considered significant by SCAQMD.




3-16

Table 3.3.A: SCAQMD Significance Thresholds

Air Pollutant Construction Phase

(lbs/day) Operational Phase

(lbs/day)

ROCs 75 55

CO 550 550

NOX 100 55

SOX 150 150

PM10 150 150

PM2.5 55 55

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2015).

CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day NOX = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particular matter less than 2.5 microns in size

PM10 = particular matter less than 10 microns in size ROCs = reactive organic compounds SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SOX = sulfur oxides

Construction Emissions. Air quality impacts could occur during demolition and construction of the proposed project due to soil disturbance and equipment exhaust. Major sources of emissions during demolition, grading, building construction and site work, building erection, paving and architectural coatings include (1) exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, (2) equipment and fugitive dust generated by vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, and (3) sand disturbances from compacting and cement paving. The following summarizes construction emissions and associated impacts of the proposed project.

Construction of the proposed project would include the following tasks: demolition, site preparation, grading, concrete, building erection, building construction, and architectural coatings. The project phasing would generally start with the demolition of the small portions of the existing structures on the project site, and continue with the construction of the proposed project. It is anticipated that construction activities would take approximately 13.5 months. Peak daily and annual emissions were analyzed using California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2). Project-specific information provided by the project applicant was used where available, including building details, construction schedule, materials, and grading requirements. In total, 157,352 sf of demolition debris would be hauled off the site in trucks. It is anticipated that 6,500 cubic yards of soil would be exported and 500 cubic yards of soil would be imported during grading; the following default equipment from CalEEMod was utilized in the analysis: industrial saws, excavators, dozers, loaders, graders, cement and mortar mixers, backhoes, cranes, generator sets, forklifts, welders, compressors, paving equipment, pavers, and rollers.

Fugitive dust emissions would be substantially reduced by compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Implementation of these rules, including measures such as on-site watering at least two times daily was accounted for in the project emission estimates.




Table 3.3.B presents the peak daily construction emissions based on the CalEEMod emission estimates. It should be noted that for purposes of this analysis, construction phases are not anticipated to overlap. This table shows that construction equipment/vehicle emissions during construction periods would not exceed any of the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds. Therefore, the air quality impacts during construction would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Table 3.3.B: Peak Daily Construction Emissions

Peak Construction Emissions Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)

ROCs NOX CO SO2 PM10

(total) PM2.5 (total)

Demolition 2.9 35.7 18.3 0.1 5.3 2.1

Site Preparation 1.9 23.7 13.1 0.0 1.2 0.9

Grading 2.3 29.6 12.0 0.0 4.0 2.5

Building Construction 3.1 22.8 17.4 0.0 1.7 1.3

Paving 1.5 12.6 12.4 0.0 0.9 0.7

Architectural Coatings 12.3 1.9 2.2 0.0 0.2 0.2

Highest Peak Daily Emissions 12.3 35.7 18.3 0.1 5.3 2.5

SCAQMD Construction Emissions Threshold

75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0

Exceed Significance? No No No No No No Source: Compiled by LSA (April 2018). Note: Column totals may not add up due to rounding. CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day NOx = nitrogen oxide PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter ROCs = reactive organic compounds SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SO2 = sulfur dioxide

Operational Emissions. Long-term air emission impacts are those impacts associated with any change in permanent use of the project site by on-site stationary and off-site mobile sources that increase emissions. Stationary-source emissions include emissions associated with electricity consumption and natural gas usage. Mobile-source emissions result from vehicle trips associated with a project.

Based on the traffic analysis included in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would generate 114 total daily trips during project operations. Long‐term operational emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 3.3.C.

In addition, results shown in Table 3.3.C indicate that the increase of all criteria pollutants would not exceed the corresponding SCAQMD daily emission thresholds for any criteria pollutants. Therefore, project-related long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.




3-18

Table 3.3.C: Peak Daily Operational Emissions

Peak Operational Emissions Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)

ROCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Area Sources 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Energy Sources 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mobile Sources 0.2 1.0 3.3 0.0 1.1 0.3

Warehouse Equipment 0.3 2.6 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 Total 1.4 3.7 5.8 0.0 1.3 0.5

SCAQMD Thresholds 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0

Significant? No No No No No No Source: Compiled by LSA (April 2018). Notes: Column totals may not add up due to rounding. A representative amount of diesel-powered warehouse equipment (e.g., forklifts) was assumed. CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day NOX = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size

PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size ROCs = reactive organic compounds SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SOX = sulfur oxides

(c) 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5. In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State PM10 standard, and in attainment/maintenance for the federal PM10, CO, and NO2 standards. As discussed in Response 3.3(b) above, no exceedance of SCAQMD criteria pollutant emission thresholds would be anticipated for construction and operation of the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for the region. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in nonattainment status in the Basin. No mitigation would be required.

(d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Response 3.3(b), the proposed project would not significantly increase long-term emissions in the vicinity of the project site. Project implementation may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, the Construction Contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following the SCAQMD’s standard construction practices (Rules 402 and 403). Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not




remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Some of the applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized as follows:

Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).

Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).

All trucks hauling demolished material, dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least 2 ft of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer).

SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod results to localized impacts analyses.1 Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to adverse air quality. The project site is primarily surrounded by Industrial uses, with commercial uses also present east and west of the project site. Residential uses are present in areas to the north, west, and east of the project site. The sensitive receptors nearest to the proposed project are single family residences located approximately 400 feet (ft) (125 meters) to the east of the project site. Table 3.3.D shows that the construction emission rates would not exceed the localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for the nearest sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site.

Table 3.3.D: Construction Localized Emissions

Emissions Sources Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)

NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

On-Site Emissions 24.0 16.0 4.5 2.4

LST 104.3 1,373.3 36.0 12.3

Significant Emissions? No No No No Source: Compiled by LSA (April 2018). Note: Source Receptor Area – Central Orange County, 1 acre, receptors at 125 meters. CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day LST = localized significance threshold

NOX = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size

Table 3.3.E shows that the operational emission rates would not exceed the LSTs for sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed operational activity would not result in a locally significant air quality impact.

1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized

Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf (accessed April 2018).




3-20

Table 3.3.E: Operational Localized Emissions

Emissions Sources Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)

NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

On-Site Emissions 2.6 2.4 0.2 0.2

LST 104.3 1,373.3 9.0 12.2

Significant Emissions? No No No No Source: Compiled by LSA (April 2018). Note: Source Receptor Area – Central Orange County, 1 acre, receptors at 125 meters. CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day LST = local significance threshold

NOX = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size

The project’s on-site emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s LSTs for construction and operations. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operation of the proposed project, and potential short-term impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

(e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact. SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies various secondary significance criteria related to odorous air contaminants. Substantial odor-generating sources include land uses such as agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or heavy manufacturing uses. Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, these sources shall include a quantitative assessment of potential odors and meteorological conditions.

Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment during construction of the proposed project. However, these odors would be limited to the construction period and would disperse quickly; therefore, these odors would not be considered a significant impact.

On-site food processing and trash receptacles associated with the proposed operations would have the potential to create adverse odors. The organic and inorganic compounds emitted from various food processing operations may become nuisances in the surroundings when they can create objectionable odors as perceived by the general public. Similar to existing site conditions, trash receptacles would be located outdoors and would be emptied Monday through Saturday by Republic Services, which would prevent odors. Therefore, no adverse odor impacts are anticipated from the proposed food processing facility.] The proposed project does not propose any uses or activities that would result in potentially significant odor impacts.

The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing manufacturing and warehouse operation; however, the existing manufacturing facility on the project site will manufacture the same products as the proposed expanded facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not be a source of new odors in the project area. Further, the project is located in an industrial area, and the nearest sensitive receptors are located at least 400 ft away from the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result from the proposed project, and no mitigation would be required.




3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?

(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 CDFW or USFWS?

(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

Impact Analysis:

(a) Would the project 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 (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?

No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area, and is developed with an industrial/manufacturing building and a vacant industrial/warehouse building, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. Landscaped setbacks along the eastern and southern boundaries




3-22

of the project site consist of grassy lawn, several mature trees, and ornamental vegetation. Similar landscaping occurs throughout the on-site parking lots adjacent to both buildings. The two existing buildings are currently separated by parking areas, a vegetated wall, and a chain-link fence traversing the project site in a north-south direction.

As part of the project, the existing landscaped area along the eastern boundary of the site would be replaced with on-site parking, a 25 ft driveway connecting the new parking area to the southern parking area, and a new 18 ft wide landscape buffer with ornamental landscaping. Specifically, the landscaping along the eastern boundary of the project site would be replaced with a variety of 24-inch box trees, shrubs, groundcover, and decorative gravel. Similar landscaping would be planted on the northern and eastern boundaries of Building B and in the proposed parking planters on the eastern portion of the site. Proposed tree species would be non-native and include sweet bay (Laurus nobilis), Brisbane box (Lophostemon confertus), Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis), and African sumac (Rhus lancea). Several tree species currently exist on the project site and would remain in place, including Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis), California sycamore (Platanus racemose), carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). A variety of 1- to 15-gallon shrubs and groundcover, a majority of which would be non-native, would also be included as part of the new landscaping. In addition, the vegetated wall between the two existing buildings would be removed to accommodate the proposed one-story tofu manufacturing plant expansion.

Although a portion of the existing on-site landscaping (i.e., trees and vegetation on the eastern portion of the site) would be removed as part of the proposed project, there is no native vegetation on the project site. Furthermore, the project site is located in a built-out urban area and does not contain habitat that would support sensitive species; there are no known candidate, sensitive, or special-status animal species on the site. According to the Conservation Element in the 2008 General Plan for the City of Garden Grove (City) (page 10-3), biological resources are almost nonexistent in the City due to the urban nature of the City and surrounding areas. Additionally, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report (Environmental Conservation Online System [ECOS]) does not identify any locations of critical habitat within approximately 8 miles of the project site. The closest known critical habitat (Coastal California gnatcatcher) is located approximately 8 miles to the north of the project site.1 Therefore, no impacts to sensitive or special-status species would result from project implementation, and no mitigation would be required.

(b) Would the project 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 CDFW or USFWS?

No Impact. The project site is currently developed and is located in an urban area. As noted in Response 3.4(a), the USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report (Environmental Conservation Online System [ECOS]) does not identify any locations of critical

1 The closest known critical habitat is within Brea Canyon and contains Coastal California gnatcatcher.




habitat within approximately 8 miles of the project site. The closest known critical habitat is approximately 8 miles away to the northeast of the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans would result from project implementation, and no mitigation would be required.

(c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. The project site is currently developed and is located in an urban area. Based on a review of site photographs and current and historical aerial images, the site has been previously graded and does not contain any natural hydrologic features or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pools, and coastal) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means, and no mitigation would be required.

(d) Would the project 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?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an urban area, is presently developed with industrial uses, and does not contain native habitat. No portion of the project site or immediately surrounding areas contains an open body of water that serves as natural habitat in which fish could exist. Likewise, there is no established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor existing within or adjacent to the project site. Species that are found on the site either fly onto the site or are able to navigate through long stretches of urban development. Therefore, the project site does not contain any native resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, or wildlife corridors. No mitigation is required for these resources.

Existing landscaping, including several trees, may provide suitable habitat for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Several of the ornamental trees currently present on the project site would be removed during project construction. Therefore, the project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation and trees are removed during the nesting season. Nesting birds are protected under the federal MBTA (Title 33, United States Code [USC], Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of the proposed project would be subject to the provisions of the MBTA, which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests. Project implementation must be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to active nests during the breeding season. Therefore, if project construction occurs between February 15 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to ground- and/or vegetation-disturbing activities to confirm the absence of nesting birds. As documented in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, avoiding impacts can be accomplished through a variety of means, including restricting brush and tree removal to periods outside the avian




3-24

nesting season (February 15–August 31) or through establishing buffers around any active nests. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potentially significant impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure:

BIO-1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the event that vegetation and tree removal activities should occur within the active breeding season for birds (February 15–August 31), the Project/Applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist that is familiar with local birds and their nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The nesting survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity, and dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nests (e.g., as much as 500 ft for raptors and 300 ft for nonraptors [subject to the recommendations of the qualified biologist]), and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Prior to commencement of grading activities and issuance of any building permits, the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans are consistent with the requirements stated above, that pre-construction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field with orange snow fencing.

(e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. Chapter 11.32 of the City Municipal Code regulates the care and removal of trees on public property. While the project does include the removal of several trees on the project site, no trees in the public right-of-way would be removed, cut, pruned, broken, injured, or planted. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Municipal Code, which addresses trees on public property. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no mitigation would be required.

(f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. As previously stated, the project site is currently developed and is located in an urban area. There project site is not located in or adjacent to an existing or proposed Habitat




Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other habitat conservation plan in the City of Garden Grove. More specifically, the City is not located within the boundaries of the Orange County Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no mitigation would be required.




3-26

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion:

The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register); the California Register of Historical Places (California Register); and the Report of the Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading Docks, and Parking Lot, 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California (Geotechnical Investigation) (Amec Foster Wheeler; November 27, 2017) (Appendix B).

Impact Analysis:

(a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

No Impact. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).

The California Register defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.




According to the City of Garden Grove’s (City) General Plan Conservation Element (2008), the City contains three structures (the Stanley or Ware House within Heritage Park, the Harry A. Lake House, and the Reyburn House) that are candidates for nomination to the National Register. However, according to the National Register1 and the California Register,2 there are no documented historic resources on or within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to historic resources because there are no local, State, or federal historic resources on or adjacent to the project site. No mitigation would be required.

(b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction. The project site is currently developed with industrial uses and associated paved surface parking lots. The project site has been previously disturbed and significantly altered as a result of past construction activities on the site.

Although there is little potential for the project to impact prehistoric resources due to significant prior disturbance from past grading and development activities, project construction would require grading and excavation activities that may extend into native soils. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 outlines procedures to be followed in the unlikely event unknown archaeological resources are discovered at any time during grading and construction activities. In accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, work in the area would be halted and deposits would be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in California PRC Section 21083.2. More specifically, in the event that archaeological materials are encountered during construction, work in the vicinity of the find should be halted until the find can be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist to determine the appropriate treatment and documentation of the discovery (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(f). Compliance with existing regulations (as required by Mitigation Measure CUL-1), would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Operation. At the completion of project construction, the proposed project would not result in further disturbance of native soils on the project site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. No mitigation would be required.

1 United States Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places. Website: https://

www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466 (accessed April 3, 2018). 2 Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Resources. Website: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/Listed

Resources/?view=county&criteria=30 (accessed April 3, 2018).




3-28

Mitigation Measure:

CUL-1 Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). Construction personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project site. The found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2.

Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific requirements regarding California PRC (Section 21083.2) and the treatment of archaeological resources as specified above.

(c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?


Construction. As detailed in the Geotechnical Investigation for the project (Appendix B), the project site is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, a 900-mile long northwest-southeast-trending structural block that extends from the Transverse Ranges in the north to the tip of Baja California in the south and includes the Los Angeles Basin.

Results of the Geologic Investigation prepared for the project also indicate that the project site contains fill at depths up to 2 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs). These fills generally consist of silty sand and are underlain by Holocene- to late Pleistocene-age alluvial fan deposits. Native soils on the site were determined to primarily consist of very-loose-to-very-dense silty sand, sand, and silt with lesser deposits of clay to the maximum depth of 76 ft that was explored as part of the Geotechnical Investigation.

Artificial Fill consists of sediments that have been removed from one location and transported to another location and, therefore, have no paleontological sensitivity. Due to the shallow depths of Artificial Fill on the site and the unknown origin of native soils on the site, it is possible that excavation (which is anticipated to extend up to 4.5 ft bgs) and construction activities may unearth buried scientifically important resources. In the unlikely event that fossil remains are encountered on the site, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires that a paleontologist be contacted to assess the discovery for scientific significance and to make recommendations regarding the necessity to develop paleontological mitigation (including paleontological monitoring, collection,




stabilization, and identification of observed resources; curation of resources into a museum repository; and preparation of a monitoring report of findings). With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation. At the completion of project construction, the proposed project would not result in further disturbance of native soils on the project site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measure:

CUL-2 Unknown Paleontological Resources. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet (ft) of the find until a qualified paleontologist (i.e., a practicing paleontologist that is recognized in the paleontological community and is proficient in vertebrate paleontology) has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines. Construction personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project site. If any fossil remains are discovered in sediments with a Low paleontological sensitivity rating (Young Alluvial Fan Deposits), the paleontologist shall make recommendations as to whether monitoring shall be required in these sediments on a full-time basis. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans specify federal, State, and local requirements related to the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources as stated above.

(d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Due to the past disturbance and development of the entire site, no known human remains are present on the project site, and there are no facts or evidence to support the idea that Native Americans or people of European descent are buried on the project site. However, as described previously, buried and undiscovered archaeological remains, including human remains, may be present below the ground surface in portions of the project site. Disturbing human remains could violate the State’s Health and Safety Code, as well as destroy the resource. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project excavation or grading, the proper authorities would be notified, and standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains during the earthmoving activities would be implemented. To ensure proper treatment of burials, in the event of an unanticipated discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, the law requires that all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find halt immediately, the area of the




3-30

find be protected, and the Construction Contractor immediately notify the County Coroner of the find. The Construction Contractor, the Project/Applicant, and the County Coroner are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and Section 7050.5 of the State’s Health and Safety Code. Compliance with these provisions (specified in Mitigation Measure CUL-3), would ensure that any potential impacts to unknown buried human remains would be less than significant by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains as required by State law.

Mitigation Measure:

CUL-3 Human Remains. In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50 ft of the discovery shall cease and the County Coroner notified immediately consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the property owner, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment and disposition of the remains. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that all grading plans specify the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, as stated above.




3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

(iv) Landslides?

(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

(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?

Discussion:

The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation-Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading Docks, and Parking Lot 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California, (Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation) prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler (December 2, 2017) and the Report of Geotechnical Consultation Proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading Docks, and Parking Lot 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California (Geotechnical Investigation) prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler (November 27, 2017). Both reports are contained in Appendix B to this IS/MND.




3-32

Impact Analysis:

(a)(i) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known active or potentially active faults or fault traces crossing the site. As noted in the geotechnical reports in Appendix B, the project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest mapped active fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, which is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the site. As the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there is no evidence of active faulting on or around the immediate project site, the potential for ground rupture to affect the project is considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.

(a)(ii) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As with all of Southern California, the project site is subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults. As discussed in Response 3.6(a)(i), the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the Newport-Inglewood Fault is located approximately 6 miles from the project site and is capable of producing strong ground motion. During an earthquake along this fault or others, seismically induced ground shaking would be expected to occur. The severity of the shaking would be influenced by the distance of the site to the seismic source, the soil conditions, and the depth to groundwater.

Ground shaking generated by fault movement is considered a potentially significant impact that may affect the proposed project. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires that the Project/Applicant comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project, the most current California Building Code (CBC), and the City of Garden Grove (City) Building Code, which stipulates appropriate seismic design provisions that shall be implemented with project design and construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

GEO-1 Compliance with Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation. All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical reports for the project site that have been prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler titled (1) Report of Geotechnical Consultation Proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading




Docks, and Parking Lot 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California (November 27, 2017) and (2) Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation-Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading Docks, and Parking Lot 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California, (December 2, 2017). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Garden Grove (City) Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading and construction, the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in any subsequent written reports. All conditions contained in the geotechnical investigation reports shall be included on the building plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the City Building Services Division, or appropriate designee, prior to commencement of grading activities.

(a)(iii) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction commonly occurs when three conditions are present simultaneously: (1) shallow groundwater; (2) relatively loose, cohesionless (granular) soil; and (3) earthquake-generated seismic waves. The presence of these conditions may cause a loss of shear strength and, in many cases, ground settlement. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type, relative density, grain size, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of the seismic ground shaking.

The seismically induced liquefaction and settlement potential of the on-site subsurface soils was evaluated as part of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project. The liquefaction and settlement potential of the site was evaluated with consideration to historic and current groundwater levels, soil types, gradation, relative density, intensity of ground shaking, and duration of shaking. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is in an area with a high liquefaction and settlement potential, and would be subject to impacts related to liquefaction and settlement of the on-site soils as a result of seismic shaking. Mitigation Measure GEO-1, provided above, requires the Project/Applicant to comply with the recommendations of the project Geotechnical Investigations, which stipulate appropriate seismic design provisions that shall be implemented with project design and construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential project impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and settlement, would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above.




3-34

(a)(iv) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?

No Impact. The project site is relatively flat, and there are no substantial hillsides or unstable slopes immediately adjacent to the site boundary. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, there is no potential for landslide hazards nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, no impacts with respect to landslides would occur, and no mitigation is required.

(b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact. During the construction activities of the proposed project, bare soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. The increased erosion potential could result in short-term water quality impacts as identified in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. During construction, the Project/Applicant would be required to adhere to the requirements of the General Construction Permit and implement Erosion Control and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) specifically identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (Compliance Measure CM-WQ-1), which are intended to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. The proposed project would permanently increase impervious surface area on the project site by 0.59 acre compared to existing conditions, and would increase runoff peak flow during a storm event. In the proposed condition, erosion and siltation would be minimized in the landscaped pervious areas, where soil would be stabilized by vegetation and stormwater would continue to percolate. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not increase on-site erosion or loss of topsoil. For these reasons, with implementation of Compliance Measure CM-WQ-1, which requires compliance with the Construction General Permit, impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required; however, implementation of Compliance Measure CM-WQ-1 provided in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, would reduce impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil.

(c) Would the project 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?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking. As previously discussed in Response 3.6. (a)(iv), landslides or other forms of natural slope instability do not represent a significant hazard to the project because the site is located in a relatively flat area, and there is no evidence of landslides in the project vicinity. Therefore,




potential impacts related to landslides would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Although there are no indications of landslide activity at the project site, grading activities during construction would produce temporary construction slopes in some areas. Unstable cut-and-fill slopes could create short-term hazards. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the project to conform to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation (Amec Foster Wheeler; November 27, 2017; Appendix B), which contains specific recommendations for addressing potential slope instability. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, temporary excavation slopes should be no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical ratio) and shored for safety. Unshored excavations should not be steeper than 1.5:1. All excavation activities on the site should be conducted in accordance with the CBC and the City’s Building Code. With implementation of the geotechnical recommendations (Mitigation Measure GEO-1), potential impacts related to slope instability would be reduced below a level of significance.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the potential for lateral spreading on the project site is considered to be low. However, as discussed in Response 3.6(a)(iii), the project site is in an area that has potentially liquefiable soils, and would be subject to impacts related to liquefaction and settlement of the on-site soils as a result of seismic shaking. However, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 above requires the Project/Applicant to comply with the recommendations of the project Geotechnical Investigation, which stipulates appropriate seismic design provisions that shall be implemented with project design and construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential lateral spreading impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Subsidence is a motion of the surface that occurs when oil, gas, and water extraction lead to land surface sinking, which causes a loss of pore pressure as the weight of the overburden soils compacts the underlying sediments. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is not in an area of known subsidence. Therefore, construction and implementation of the proposed project would not result in subsidence-related impacts, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above.

(d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain types of clay materials that occupy considerably more volume when they are wet or hydrated than when they are dry or dehydrated. Volume changes associated with changes in the moisture content of near-surface expansive soils can cause uplift or heave of the ground when they become wet or, less commonly, cause settlement when they dry out. According to the Geotechnical Investigation (Amec Foster Wheeler; November 27, 2017; Appendix B), the natural soils consisted predominantly of very-loose-to-very-dense silty sand, sand, and silt (all of which were tested as part of the Geotechnical Investigation and were determined to not be expansive) with lesser deposits of clay. Additionally, any required import material would consist of [relatively non-




3-36

expansive soils (i.e., soils with an expansion index of less than 35). Therefore, potential project impacts related to expansive soils are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

(e) Would the project 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?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include construction of septic tanks or connections to septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the soil’s capability to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no mitigation is required.




3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Technical Background:

Global climate change (GCC) describes alterations in weather features (e.g., temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) that occur across the Earth as a whole. Global temperatures are modulated by naturally occurring components in the atmosphere (e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], and nitrous dioxide [N2O]) that capture heat radiated from the Earth’s surface, which in turn warms the atmosphere. This natural phenomenon is known as the “greenhouse effect.” That said, excessive human-generated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can and are altering the global climate. The principal GHGs of concern contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is the largest naturally occurring GHG; however, it is not identified as an anthropogenic constituent of concern.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines, and the draft proposed changes to the State CEQA Guidelines do not currently prescribe specific quantitative thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for conducting an impact analysis related to GHG effects on global climate. Rather, as with most environmental topics, significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency.

Currently, there is no Statewide GHG emissions threshold that has been used to determine the potential GHG emissions impacts of a project. Thresholds and methodology are still being developed and revised by air quality districts in the State. Therefore, this environmental issue remains unsettled and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis until the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopts significance thresholds and GHG emissions impact methodology. In the absence of a qualified Climate Action Plan for the City of Garden Grove (City), SCAQMD thresholds, when adopted, would apply to future development within the City.

To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group).1 This Working Group proposed a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects for which SCAQMD is not the lead agency. In the absence of any further

1 SCAQMD. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/

regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds (accessed April 2018).




3-38

guidance from SCAQMD since this proposal in 2008, these draft interim proposed GHG emissions thresholds are used in this analysis. The applicable tier for this project is Tier 3; if GHG emissions are less than 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per year, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.

The City’s General Plan has adopted a broad spectrum of policies related to climate change, as shown in the Air Quality Element of its General Plan. The General Plan was adopted in 2008 and sets forth the goals, objectives, and policies that guide the City on the implementation of its air quality improvement programs and strategies. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Goal AQ-2: Increased awareness and participation throughout the community in efforts to reduce air pollution and enhance air quality.

Policy AQ-IMP-2B: Require new development or redevelopment projects to provide pedestrian and bicycle trails access to nearby shopping and employment centers.

Goal AQ-5: Increased energy efficiency and conservation.

Policy AQ-IMP-6D: Require new development to comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code).

Individual GHGs have varying global warming potentials and atmospheric lifetimes. Because it is not possible to tie specific GHG emissions to actual changes in climate, this evaluation focuses on the project’s emissions of GHGs. CO2e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it normalizes various GHGs to the same metric. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of MT of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e). Therefore, for the purpose of this technical analysis, the concept of CO2e is used to describe how much global climate change a given type and amount of GHG may cause, using the functionally equivalent amount or concentration of CO2 as the reference. The GHG emissions estimates were calculated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.

Impact Analysis

(a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, with the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) occurring during the project’s operations.

Overall, the following activities associated with the proposed project could directly or indirectly contribute to the generation of GHG emissions:




Construction Activities: GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O.

Gas, Electricity and Water Use: Natural gas use results in the emission of two GHGs: CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 (from the combustion of natural gas). Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel. California’s water conveyance system is energy-intensive. Approximately one-fifth of the electricity and one-third of the non-power plant natural gas consumed in the State are associated with water delivery, treatment, and use.1

Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste (e.g., green waste, trash from receptacles, and construction waste) generated by the project could contribute to GHG emissions in a variety of ways. Landfilling and other methods of disposal use energy for transporting and managing the waste, resulting in the production of additional GHGs to varying degrees. Landfilling, the most common waste management practice, results in the release of CH4 from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials. CH4 is 25 times more potent a GHG than CO2. However, landfill methane (CH4) can also be a source of energy. In addition, many materials in landfills do not decompose fully, and the carbon that remains is sequestered in the landfill and not released into the atmosphere.

Motor Vehicle Use: Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile trips.

Construction GHG Emissions. GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment and vehicle exhaust. The calculation presented below includes construction emissions in terms of CO2 and annual CO2e GHG emissions from increased energy consumption, water usage, and solid waste disposal.

GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would predominantly consist of CO2. In comparison to criteria air pollutants such as O3 and PM10, CO2 emissions persist in the atmosphere for a substantially longer period of time. While emissions of other GHGs, such as CH4, are important with respect to GCC, emission levels of other GHGs are less dependent on the land use and circulation patterns associated with the proposed land use development project than are levels of CO2.

Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coatings, paving, on-site construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would

1 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. Economic Sectors Portal. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/

ghgsectors/ghgsectors.htm (accessed April 2018).




3-40

vary daily as construction activity levels change. Table 3.7.A presents the annual construction emissions based on the CalEEMod emission estimates. Results indicate a total of approximately 387 MT of CO2e would be generated during the construction period. Per SCAQMD guidance, due to the long-term nature of the GHGs in the atmosphere, instead of determining significance of construction emissions alone, the total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years (an estimate of the life of the project) and included in the operations analysis. Amortized over 30 years, the total construction emissions would generate approximately 12.9 MT of CO2e per year.

Table 3.7.A: Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Construction Emissions Pollutant Emissions (MT/yr)

CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Demolition 51.1 0.0 0.0 51.3

Site Preparation 23.4 0.0 0.0 23.6.

Grading 49.4 0.0 0.0 49.7

Building Construction 239.1 0.0 0.0 239.3

Paving 17.3 0.0 0.0 17.3

Architectural Coatings 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.3

Total Project Emissions 385.6 0.1 0.0 386.5

Amortized Emissions 12.9 0.0 0.0 12.9 Source: Compiled by LSA (April 2018). Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding of numbers. CH4 = methane CO2 = carbon dioxide CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

MT/yr = metric tons per year N2O = nitrous oxide

Operational GHG Emissions. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources and indirect emissions from stationary sources associated with energy consumption. Project specific energy utilization rates for electricity and natural gas were entered into CalEEMod. Operational and Construction GHG emissions, as shown in Table 3.7.B, were calculated using CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2). Based on SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions were amortized over 30 years (a typical project lifetime) and added to the total project operational emissions. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project-generated vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities including landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, natural gas for heating, and other sources. Increases in stationary-source emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity, natural gas, and water by the proposed project.

As shown in Table 3.7.B, the proposed project would generate 1,694 MT of CO2e per year. The project’s emissions are less than the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year that applies to industrial projects; thus, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.




Table 3.7.B: Long Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Operational Emissions Pollutant Emissions (MT/yr)

Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Proposed Project

Construction Emissions Amortized over 30 Years

0.0 12.9 12.9 0.0 0.0 12.9

Operational Emissions

Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Energy 0.0 998.2 998.2 0.0 0.0 1,001.8

Mobile 0.0 199.1 199.1 0.0 0.0 199.3

Warehouse Equipment 0.0 34.9 34.9 0.0 0.0 35.2

Waste 8.4 0.0 8.4 0.5 0.0 20.8

Water 24.4 318.6 343.0 2.5 0.0 424.3

Total Project Emissions 32.8 1,563.7 1,596.5 3.1 0.0 1,694.3

SCAQMD Tier 3 Threshold 3,000

Significant? No Source: Compiled by LSA (April 2018). Note: Column totals may not add up due to rounding. Bio-CO2 = biologically generated CO2 CH4 = methane CO2 = carbon dioxide CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

MT/yr = metric tons per year N2O = nitrous oxide NBio-CO2 = non-biologically generated CO2

SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District

(b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the

purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City currently does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan to reduce GHG emissions within its jurisdictional boundaries. Absent such a plan, the City of Garden Grove General Plan, as well as the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and SCAQMD goals and policies related to climate change were each used to respond to this threshold.

The Air Quality Element of the City’s General Plan 2008 contains policies that are directed at managing the GHG emissions from projects in the City. A discussion of these policies is provided in Table 3.7.C. As shown in this table, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies in the City’s General Plan, and no mitigation would be required.

In 2008, ARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The Climate Change Scoping Plan proposed a “comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health.”




3-42

Table 3.7.C: Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions

General Plan Policy Summary Project Consistency

Air Quality Element (Chapter 8)

AQ-IMP-2B: Encourage employment centers that are non-polluting or low polluting and do not draw large number of vehicles in proximity to residential uses.

Consistent. As evidenced by the results of the GHG analysis in Table 3.7.B, the proposed project is a low polluting land use and would not exceed applicable GHG emissions thresholds. Additionally, the proposed project would provide employment through the expansion of an existing tofu manufacturing use. Although the proposed project would encourage employment in proximity to residential uses, the project would result in an increase of 114 total daily trips and total peak hour trips by 16 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 18 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Because the proposed project would only incrementally increase the total number of trips generated from operational activities on the site compared to existing conditions, the Project was determined to result in less than significant] traffic impacts (refer to Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic). Therefore, the associated project-related increase in GHG emissions from mobile sources would also be incremental when compared to existing conditions.

Policy-AQ-IMP-6D: Require new development to comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code).

Consistent. As described further in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project would meet or exceed Title 24 energy use requirements. Specifically, the project would include the installation of an underground cistern that would be used for rainwater harvesting in the irrigation of new and existing landscaping and would also include the installation of LED interior lighting fixtures within the proposed building expansion area.

Source: City of Garden Grove. General Plan (2008). GHG = greenhouse gas LED = light-emitting diode

The Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008) has a range of GHG reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and nonmonetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms (e.g., a cap-and-trade system), and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. In November 2017, ARB released an Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. In the 2017 Update, nine key focus areas were identified: energy, transportation, agriculture, water, waste management, natural and working lands, short-lived climate pollutants, green buildings, and the cap-and-trade program. The proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 energy use requirements, as well as the installation of an underground cistern to harvest rainwater for irrigation purposes, would ensure that the proposed project would be consistent with AB 32 and the 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

While SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold for assessing the significance of GHG emissions, the draft screening value for residential use is 3,000 MT of CO2e per year. As discussed in Response 3.7(a), the proposed project would result in operational and amortized construction GHG emissions of 1,694 MT of CO2e per year that are well below the suggested threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year. As a result, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAQMD’s adopted plans and policies, which were determined by SCAQMD to be consistent with California’s State-level plans, policies, and regulations related to GHG. Therefore, the proposed project is also consistent with State-level plans. Less than significant impacts would result from the proposed project, and no mitigation would be required.




3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?

(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion:

The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Prepared for the House Foods America Corporation located at 7351 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California 92841 (Phase I ESA) (Professional Service Industries,




3-44

Inc.; November 4, 2016) and the Asbestos & Limited Lead Screening Report Survey (Asbestos and Lead Survey) (Southland Services; November 14, 2016). Both reports are contained in Appendix C of this IS/MND.

Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the

routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous materials are chemicals that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release or mishap, and are defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive, and irritant, or strong sensitizer.1 Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under the United States Department of Transportation “hazardous materials” regulations and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “hazardous waste” regulations. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment. The probable frequency and severity of consequences from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is affected by the type of substance, the quantity used or managed, and the nature of the activities and operations.

Construction. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would use a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances (e.g., fuels and oils) typical during heavy equipment operation for site grading and construction. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction is limited and would be in compliance with existing government regulations. The potential for the release of hazardous materials during project construction is low, and even if a release would occur, it would not result in a significant hazard to the public, surrounding land uses, or environment, due to the small quantities of these materials associated with construction vehicles. Therefore, potential impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Operation. The proposed project includes approximately 243,416 square feet (sf) of industrial land uses including the addition of approximately 36,763 sf of new area. Hazardous substances associated with industrial uses frequently involve chemicals that are considered hazardous when accidently released into the environment.

As an industrial development, long-term operational activities may involve the transport, use, and storage of larger quantities of potentially hazardous materials in the form of chemical soaps, detergents, sanitizers, and disinfectants that are routinely used to keep food free of unwanted microorganisms and other contaminants, as well as fertilizers and pesticides for ornamental landscaping. Such materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level

1 A “sensitizer” is a chemical that can cause a substantial proportion of people or animals to develop an

allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to a chemical (U.S. Department of Labor 2017).




through compliance with these standards and regulations. Further, the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 requires businesses that use, handle, or store hazardous materials to prepare an inventory of hazardous substances on the premises. This plan would include an inventory of hazardous materials, addressing the proper storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials; and dictating spill response and notification requirements. The project would be subject to compliance with this regulation, as well as additional applicable State and local regulations intended to manage the transport, storage, manufacture, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials resulting from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

(b) Would the project 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?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Phase I ESA and Asbestos and Lead Survey were prepared to document potential Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) associated with the currently vacant eastern portion of the project site.1 The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project included (1) a review of regulatory agency records, (2), a site reconnaissance survey, and (3) interviews with key personnel. A REC is defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) as, “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.”

Review of Historical Sources. Based on a review of historical resources, the Phase I ESA determined that the past uses of the site as agricultural land from 1938 to 1986 and an industrial use from 1986 to 2008 do not constitute an REC on the site.

Review of Regulatory Database Report and Agency Records. The Phase I ESA also included a review of applicable regulatory databases to determine the presence of hazardous sites within the vicinity of the project site. As part of this review, the project site was identified on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database as a Non-Generator/No Longer Regulated (NGR/NLR) site due to the previous handling of hazardous and corrosive waste on the site from 1990 to 1999. The site was also listed as having a Tiered Permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) from 1987 to 2001 due to the on-site treatment of hazardous waste. According to the HAZNET database, the property also had an aged or surplus organic removed from the property in 2001, metals removed in 2000 and 2001, oil-containing waste removed in 2014, and an unreported waste removed in 2013. The Phase I ESA determined that listing of the subject property in environmental databases does not represent

1 The trigger for requiring a Phase I ESA on the eastern half of the project site was the purchase of the

property by House Foods America Corporation. Although a Phase I ESA was not prepared for the western portion of the site, the analysis under Threshold 3.8(b) addresses impacts to both the eastern and western halves of the project site.




3-46

an REC on the project site because no cases of releases, spills, or violations were identified as part of the aforementioned database listings.

In addition to evaluating the project site for potential listing in applicable regulatory databases, the Phase I ESA also examined the potential listing of adjoining and surrounding properties for listing in regulatory databases. Results of this examination determined that the property directly north of the project site was listed in several databases due to the presence of a large-quantity generator of ignitable waste, corrosive waste, reactive waste, arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, mercury, benzene, and chloroform. However, because no significant releases, spills, or violations have been reported on the property, the Phase ESA determined that this facility does not represent an REC to the project site.

Site Reconnaissance. As part of the Phase I ESA, numerous acetylene1 cylinders, a 200-gallon propane aboveground storage tank (AST), numerous portable propane tanks, two 55-gallon drums of hydraulic oil, numerous 1-gallon containers of primer, and numerous 5-gallon buckets of a cleaning surfactant2 were observed on the project site. No spills or releases were identified and the cylinders, AST, portable tanks, drums, containers, and buckets appeared to be in good condition. Additionally, one pad-mounted transformer, which was suspected to contain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), was identified on the eastern portion of the subject property. The transformer appeared to be in good condition with no evidence of staining. Therefore, the Phase I did not identify any potential RECs on the subject property. For these reasons, the Phase I determined that the presence of hazardous substances, petroleum products, ASTs, drums, and electrical equipment on the site are not considered RECs. Moreover, the Phase I ESA did not identify any potential RECs on adjoining properties during the site reconnaissance survey.

Interviews. Interviews conducted as part of the Phase I ESA analysis did not result in any new information pertaining to any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the project site; any pending, threatened, or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the subject property; or any notices from a governmental entity regarding any possible violation of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products. Therefore, no evidence of RECs was identified during these interviews.

Construction. Construction of the proposed project would include the removal of asphalt and concrete pavement, the removal of some landscaped areas, and the partial demolition of interior and exterior walls of buildings on the project site.

Lead-Based Paint (LBP). Lead is a toxic metal that was used for many years in household products. Lead may cause a range of health defects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities to seizures and death. LBP was used extensively in buildings constructed before 1950. In 1978, LBP was banned by the federal government.

1 “Acetylene” is defined as a colorless pungent hydrocarbon gas used in welding and was formerly used in

light fixtures. 2 “Surfactant” is defined as a substance that reduces the surface tension of a liquid in which it is dissolved.




Due to the age of the building on the western portion of the project site (approximately 37 years of age; developed in 1987), the likelihood of LBP in Building A on the western half of the site is minimal. However, according to the Asbestos and Lead Survey, LBP was identified in the red roof metal stairway and white janitor sinks on the first and second floors of Building B on the eastern portion of the project site. Therefore, in the event that project construction includes the demolition of areas identified as containing LBP, the Project/Applicant would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Specifically, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the Project/Applicant to remove, handle, and dispose of all LBP in accordance with all applicable regulations.

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs). The use of asbestos in many building products was banned by the EPA by the late 1970s. In 1989, the EPA issued a ruling prohibiting the manufacturing, importation, processing, and distribution of most asbestos-containing products. This rule, known as the Ban and Phase-Out Rule, would have effectively banned the use of nearly 95 percent of all asbestos products used in the United States. However, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded most of the Ban and Phase-Out Rule in October 1991. Due to this court decision, many asbestos-containing product categories not previously banned (prior to 1989) may still be in use today. Among these common material types found in buildings are floor tile and roofing materials. ACMs represent a concern when they are subject to damage that results in the release of fibers. Friable ACMs, which can be crumbled by hand pressure and are, therefore, susceptible to damage, are of particular concern. Nonfriable ACM is a potential concern if it is damaged by maintenance work, demolition, or other activities.

The likelihood of ACMs within Building A on the western half of the site is minimal because the building on the western portion of the project site was constructed after the use of asbestos was banned in the late 1970s (i.e., the building was developed in 1981). However, an Asbestos and Lead Survey was prepared to ascertain the presence of ACMs on the eastern half of the project site. As part of this survey, 51 samples of suspected ACMs were collected from Building B, including roof materials, drywall, acoustic ceiling panels, floor tile and mastic, base cove glue, leveling compound, caulking, and carpet mastic. Results of laboratory testing indicated detectable levels of asbestos in the roof mastic and pitch pocket mastic. In the event that areas identified as having the potential for ACMs in the Asbestos and Lead Survey are proposed for demolition as part of the project, the Project/Applicant would be required to remove, handle, and dispose of all ACMs in accordance with all applicable regulations, in compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs). Standard equipment suspected of potentially containing PCBs includes industrial-capacity transformers, fluorescent light ballasts, and oil-cooled machinery. As previously stated, unmarked light fixtures in the existing buildings on the site may contain PCBs. PCBs were utilized in light fixtures to regulate the amount and flow of electricity. PCBs were




3-48

banned by the EPA in 1977 because of evidence that PCBs accumulate in the environment and can cause harmful health effects.1

Due to the age of the buildings on the western portion of the project site (approximately 37 years of age; developed in 1981), the likelihood of LBP on the western half of the site is minimal. However, as previously stated, one pad-mounted transformer was identified on the eastern portion of the subject property during the site reconnaissance survey conducted as part of the Phase I ESA. Although the transformer appeared to be in good condition with no evidence of staining, the Project/Applicant would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 in the event that the transformer is proposed for removal as part of the project. As outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the Project/Applicant would be required to remove, handle, and dispose of all PCBs in accordance with all applicable regulations.

Mold. Molds are microscopic organisms found indoors and outdoors. Mold grows and multiplies under conditions in which there is sufficient moisture and organic material. Exposure to a moldy environment could result in a variety of health effects, including nasal stuffiness, throat irritation, coughing, eye and/or skin irritation, lung infections, asthma, and neurological effects.2

The Asbestos and Lead Survey acknowledged that mold may be present within areas of Building B that could not be tested without destruction or damage to the structure (or a portion of the structure). Similarly, mold may also be present within areas of Building A that have not yet been surveyed. As such, predemolition surveys for mold are required for areas designated for demolition prior to any demolition activities. As detailed in Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, all materials containing mold shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed Construction Contractors according to all applicable regulations during demolition of structures.

Summary. As detailed above, the presence of LBP, ACMs, and PCBs were identified on the site during the Phase I ESA and Asbestos and Lead Survey. Additionally, the presence of mold cannot be ruled out without a more focused survey of structures and equipment on the project site. Because such materials generally do not pose a threat to human health until disturbed, focused surveys are required prior to demolition. The proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 outlines precautions that would be necessary to ensure the materials are properly removed and disposed of in accordance with State and federal law. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 requires predemolition surveys for mold (including sampling and analysis of all suspected building materials) in areas of the buildings designated for demolition or construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, any potential impacts would be less than significant.

1 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. PCBs Questions & Answers. January 10, 2017.

Website: https://www3.epa.gov/reg ion9/pcbs/faq.html. 2 Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Facts about Mold and Dampness. Website: https://www.

cdc.gov/mold/dampness_facts.htm, (accessed June 28, 2017).




In addition, in the unlikely event that unknown hazardous materials are discovered on the project site during construction, the project Construction Contractor would be required to comply with a Contingency Plan developed and approved prior to the commencement of grading activities, as outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-3. As stated in Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, in the event that construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the Contingency Plan will require the Construction Contractor to stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the Garden Grove Fire Department (GGFD). The GGFD responder shall determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, and federal regulations. In addition, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Highway Patrol, and local police and fire departments are trained in emergency response procedures for safely responding to accidental spills of hazardous substances on public roads, further reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, potential risks associated with encountering unknown hazardous wastes during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, construction of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment.


HAZ-1 Abatement of ACMs, LBPs, and PCBs. Wherever evidence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBPs), or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing electrical fixtures are present in areas proposed for demolition (as documented in the Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Prepared for the House Foods America Corporation located at 7351 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California 92841 [Professional Service Industries, Inc.; November 4, 2016] and the Asbestos & Limited Lead Screening Report Survey [Southland Services; November 14, 2016]), all such materials shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed Construction Contractors according to all applicable regulations during demolition of structures (40 [Code of Federal Regulations] CFR, Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA], Parts 745, 761, and 763). During demolition activities (or activities that would remove or disturb ACMs, LBPs, and/or PCBs), air monitoring shall be completed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations both to ensure adherence to applicable regulations (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD]) and to provide safety to workers and the adjacent community. The Project/Applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., all required waste manifests, sampling, and air monitoring analytical results) to the City of Garden Grove Fire Department (GGFD) showing that abatement of any ACMs, LBPs, or PCB-containing electrical fixtures identified in these structures has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and




3-50

approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 716, 745, 761, 763, and 795 and California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8, Article 2.6). An Operating & Maintenance Plan (O&M) shall be prepared for any ACMs, LBP, or PCB-containing electrical fixtures to remain in place and shall be reviewed and approved by the GGFD.

HAZ-2 Predemolition Surveys and Abatement of Mold. Prior to commencement of demolition activities, the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that predemolition surveys for mold (including sampling and analysis of all suspected building materials) shall be performed in areas of the buildings designated for demolition or construction. All inspections, surveys, and analyses shall be performed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations. If the predemolition surveys do not find mold, the inspectors shall provide documentation of the inspection and its results to the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, to confirm that no further abatement actions are required.

Wherever evidence of mold exists in areas proposed for demolition, all such materials shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed Construction Contractors according to all applicable regulations during demolition of the structure. All remediation activities, worker protection, engineering controls, and personnel protection equipment will be in compliance with the recommendations in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s "Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings" (EPA 402-K-0l-001). The Project/Applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., all required waste manifests and sampling) to the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, confirming that abatement of any mold identified in these structures has been completed.

HAZ-3 Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the GGFD, or designee, shall review and approve a Contingency Plan that addresses the procedures to be followed should on-site unknown hazards or hazardous substances be encountered during demolition and construction activities. The Contingency Plan shall indicate that if construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the Construction Contractor shall stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the GGFD. The GGFD responder shall determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, and federal regulations.

Operation. As stated previously, hazardous substances associated with the proposed industrial use would be contained (stored or confined within a specific area) without impacting the environment. Project operation may involve the transport, use, and storage of potentially hazardous materials in the form of chemical soaps, detergents, sanitizers, and disinfectants that




are routinely used to keep food free of unwanted microorganisms and other contaminants, as well as fertilizers and pesticides for ornamental landscaping. Such materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing laws and regulations. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No mitigation would be required.

(c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. The closest school to the project site is Rancho Alamitos High School, which is located 0.85 mile northeast of the project site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact associated with hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school, and no mitigation would be required.

(d) Would the project 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?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, as described further under Threshold 3.8(b), the project site was listed on the RCRA database as Non-Generator/No Longer Regulated (NGR/NLR) due to the past handling of hazardous and corrosive waste on the site from 1990 to 1999. The site was also listed as having a Tiered Permit from the SCAQMD due to the on-site treatment of hazardous waste and was listed on the HAZNET database due to the past removal of several hazardous substances. Despite the listing of the project site on the three aforementioned databases, the Phase I ESA determined that the database listings do not represent an REC on the project site because no cases of releases, spills, or violations were identified as part of the aforementioned database listings. Therefore, construction and implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment because the site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and no mitigation would be required.

(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?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed further in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic, the nearest airport to the project site is the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, which is located approximately 1.6 miles west of the project site. The airspace over the project site could be used by commercial aircraft and helicopters; however, both would be at sufficient altitude as to not affect or be affected by the proposed project. Height limitations are imposed on projects within




3-52

an airport hazard area so that structures or trees do not obstruct the airspace required for the flight of aircraft in landing or taking off, or be otherwise hazardous to the landing or taking off of aircraft. Because the project site is within 20,000 feet (ft) (3.79 miles) of an airport1, the project site falls within the 20,000 ft Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base.

FAR Part 77 states that all applicants proposing any construction or alterations that may affect navigable airspace must file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This notice will allow the FAA to conduct an initial screening determination regarding the proposed project. If the proposed development is identified as a presumed hazard, the FAA may require further aeronautical study or allow the project to be revised to include a reduction in the height of the proposed improvements. After the FAA completes the additional aeronautical study, it will normally issue a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation or a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.

The eastern portion of the project site has a height limit of 400 ft above mean sea level (amsl) and the western portion of the project site has a height limit of 350 ft amsl. The project site has an approximate elevation of 53 ft amsl. The proposed connection between the buildings would be one-story and 34 ft in height, which would result in a maximum height of 87 ft amsl. Therefore, the proposed project would be below the height limitation and would not be required to file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. The proposed project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns, or a change in location that results in substantial safety risk, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. There are no private airports or airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. As a result, the project would not affect or be affected by aviation activities associated with private airports or airstrips. No mitigation would be required.

(g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?


Construction. During short-term construction activities, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any substantial traffic queuing along Western Avenue or Orangewood Avenue and all construction equipment would be staged on site. All large construction vehicles entering and exiting the site would be guided by the use of personnel using signs and flags to direct traffic.

1 The project site is located 1.6 miles east of the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base and 1.83 miles

(9,662 ft) east of the nearest runway associated with the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base.




The project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closure or long-term blocking of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity; however, the proposed project would require temporary lane closures on Orangewood Avenue and Western Avenue to allow for utility connections. Temporary lane closures would be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual (Caltrans 2014). Among other things, the manual recommends early coordination with affected agencies to ensure that emergency vehicle access is maintained. In this manner, officials could plan and respond appropriately to direct the public away from Orangewood Avenue and Western Avenue in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation. As described in Mitigation Measure TRF-1, (refer to Section 3.14, Public Services) the Project/Applicant would be required to prepare a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP) to ensure that emergency vehicles would be able to navigate through streets adjacent to the project site that may experience congestion due to construction activities. Mitigation Measure TRF-1 also requires that all emergency access to the project site and adjacent areas be kept clear and unobstructed during all phases of demolition and construction. Traffic management personnel (flag persons), required as part of the CSTMP, would be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access. The CSTMP would also require certain conditions (e.g., providing warning signs, lights, and devices) and would require that the City of Garden Grove Police Department be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or roadway work. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRF-1, potential impacts related to GGFD’s ability to implement an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation access during construction would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRF-1, provided in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic.

Operation. The project consists of industrial uses and would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Roads that are used as response corridors and evacuation routes usually follow the most direct path to or from various parts of the community. For the project site, the main corridors utilized would be Western Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, and Knott Avenue. Access to and from the project site would be from Orangewood Avenue on the southern side of the project site.

The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would be developed in accordance with City of Garden Grove (City) emergency access standards. The proposed project would also be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on site for emergency vehicles.

As discussed in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would not result in a significant traffic impact to any study area intersections. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in long-term traffic impacts that could physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, during the operational phase of the proposed project, on-site access would be required to comply with standards established by the




3-54

City and the GGFD. The size and location of fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants) and fire access routes would be required to conform to City and GGFD standards. The proposed project would provide adequate emergency access via the driveway along Orangewood Avenue. In addition, a remote gate-opening device consistent with Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) requirements would be installed on all electronically operated access gates on the site.

Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Potential project operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

(h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury of death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

No Impact. Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed camp fires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. The project site and the surrounding areas are developed with urban and suburban uses and do not include brush- and grass-covered areas typically found in areas susceptible to wildfires. As a result, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death associated with wildland fires. No mitigation would be required.




3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

(e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?

(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?




3-56

Discussion: The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the Report Of Geotechnical Investigation (Amec Foster Wheeler, November 2017; attached as Appendix B) and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Joseph C. Truxaw and Associates, October 2017; attached as Appendix D).

Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would expand the existing House Foods tofu manufacturing operation, which would include construction of a connection between the two existing buildings and construction of additional employee parking. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters (i.e., the Stanton Storm Channel, Anaheim Bay, Huntington Harbour, and the Pacific Ocean).

Construction. During construction, the total disturbed soil area would be approximately 3.18 acres. Projects that disturb greater than 1 acre of soil are required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by Orders Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit). However, projects that disturb between 1 acre and 5 acres and can demonstrate there would be low erosivity potential during construction are eligible for a Small Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver, which exempts the project from coverage under the Construction General Permit. To obtain a waiver, the project would need to demonstrate there would be no adverse water quality impacts because construction activities would only occur when there is a low erosivity potential (i.e., the rainfall erosivity value in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation [R factor] for the project is less than 5). Based on a 13.5-month construction schedule with a construction start date in mid-2018, and a construction end date in the fall of 2019, the R factor for the project would be approximately 40. Therefore, the project would not qualify for a Construction General Permit waiver and would be required to obtain coverage under the SWRCB’s Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), as specified in Compliance Measure CM-WQ-1. Construction BMPs would include, but are not limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.




As discussed in the Report of Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project, groundwater was encountered in exploratory borings at depths ranging from approximately 13 to 17 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs). Excavation for the proposed project would extend to a depth of 4.5 ft bgs. Therefore, groundwater would not likely be encountered during construction.

Operation. Expected pollutants of concern from the project site include suspended solids/sediment nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. According to the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the disturbed portion of the project site by approximately 0.59 acre (from approximately 8.66 acres to 9.25 acres), which would increase the peak flow of runoff and pollutant loading from the project site.

The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan details the proposed Source Control and Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs that would be implemented to target pollutants of concern in runoff from the project site to reduce impacts to water quality during operation. During final design, a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be prepared based on final design plans, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure CM-WQ-2. The Final WQMP would identify the final Source Control and LID BMPs to be implemented during project operation. Source Control BMPs are measures that focus on reducing or eliminating runoff and controlling sources of pollutants during project operation. LID BMPs mimic the project site’s existing hydrology by using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff, rather than allowing runoff to flow directly to piped or impervious storm drains. The BMPs would be installed and maintained throughout project operation, as specified in Compliance Measure CM-WQ-3.

As detailed in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed non-structural Source Control BMPs include education for property owners, tenants, and occupants, activity restrictions, common area landscape management, BMP maintenance, Title 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR) compliance, local industrial permit compliance spill contingency plan, underground storage tank compliance hazardous material disclosure compliance, uniform fire code implementation, common area litter control, employee training housekeeping of loading docks, common area catch basin inspection, and street sweeping on private streets and parking lots. The proposed Structural Source Control BMPs include provisions for storm drain system stenciling and signage; design and construction of trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; incorporation of requirements applicable to the individual priority project categories; dock areas, and wash water control for food preparation areas.

The proposed LID BMPs include underground detention (cistern), rainwater harvesting, and bioretention with underdrains. Additionally, catch basin inserts with fossil filters would be installed in on-site catch basins. The site would be graded such that only the stormwater runoff from the disturbed area would be captured by the proposed BMPs. A portion of stormwater runoff would drain to a bioretention area with underdrains and a majority of the stormwater




3-58

runoff would drain to the catch basins and then be conveyed to an underground cistern. The cistern would be used as a rainwater harvesting system for irrigating the new and existing landscaping. The rainwater harvesting system would be configured to work in conjunction with the on-site irrigation system and would include a controller that switches between domestic water and harvested water use based on demand.

The project site is currently covered under the Industrial General Permit. In compliance with the Industrial General Permit, the existing operational SWPPP would be required to be revised to reflect the new on-site uses, as required in Compliance Measure CM-WQ-4. The operational SWPPP would specify the requirements for good housekeeping BMPs implementation, BMP inspection and maintenance, and stormwater monitoring during operation to address pollutants of concern from operational activities on the project site. In addition, stormwater runoff from the project site would have to meet the pollutant discharge limitations outlined in the permit.

For the reasons outlined above, with adherence to Compliance Measures CM-WQ-1 through CM-WQ-4, which require implementation of construction and post-construction BMPs and testing and treatment of dewatered groundwater, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, with the implementation of Compliance Measures CM-WQ-1 through CM-WQ-4, impacts related to WDRs, water quality standards, and degradation of water quality would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation would be required. However, the following Compliance Measures are standard conditions and/or conditions of approval based on local, State, and federal regulations or laws that serve to reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality. These Compliance Measures are applicable to the proposed project and shall be incorporated to ensure that the project has minimal impacts to receiving waters and water quality.

Compliance Measures:

CM-WQ-1 Construction General Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project/Applicant shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. R4-2014-0024 NPDES Permit No. CAS004003; Construction General Permit). This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents, including a Notice of Intent (NOI), to the SWRCB via the Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The Applicant shall provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the City of Garden Grove (City) Public Works Director, or appropriate designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented for the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall identify construction Best




Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to ensure that the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation is minimized and to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff as a result of construction activities. Upon completion of construction and stabilization of the project site, the Project/Applicant shall submit a Notice of Termination to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

CM-WQ-2 Final Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Project/Applicant shall prepare a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The Final WQMP shall be prepared consistent with the North Orange County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document (December 2013), the County of Orange Water Quality Management Plan Template (May 2011), and the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) (2003). The Project/Applicant shall provide the Final WQMP to the City of Garden Grove’s Public Works Director, or appropriate designee, for review and approval. The Final WQMP shall:

Address Site Design BMPs such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas;

Incorporate the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP;

Incorporate Structural and Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP;

Generally describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs;

Identify the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs; and

Describe the mechanism for funding the long-term operation of the Treatment Control BMPs.

CM-WQ-3 Best Management Practices. Prior to grading or building permit closeout and

the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, the Project/Applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs to the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or appropriate designee, for review and approval. Additionally, the Project/Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Garden Grove’s Public Works Director, or appropriate designee, that:

All structural BMPs described in the Final WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications;

The Applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Final WQMP; and




3-60

An adequate number of copies of the approved project WQMP are available on site.

CM-WQ-4 Industrial General Permit. Prior to the completion of construction, the Project/Applicant shall provide proof to the City of Garden Grove’s Public Works Director, or appropriate designee, that they have retained a Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner (QISP) to revise the existing operational SWPPP for the project site in compliance with the requirements of the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000001). The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions in the permit, including implementation of the operational SWPPP, implementation of BMPs, water sampling, analysis, and reporting of stormwater discharges. The Applicant shall submit the revised operational SWPPP to the SWRCB via SMARTS.

(b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located above the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin. The project site is not in a designated groundwater recharge area. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages groundwater recharge to the Orange County Groundwater Basin. According to OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update, OCWD operates 23 recharge facilities encompassing over 1,500 acres of land used for groundwater recharge. These facilities are located in the forebay of the groundwater basin adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. The project site is not located on land used for groundwater recharge.

As discussed in Response 3.9(a) above, groundwater was encountered at a depth ranging from approximately 13 to 17 ft bgs on the project site. Excavation activities for the proposed project would extend to a depth of 4.5 ft bgs. Therefore, groundwater dewatering would not likely be required.

Grading and construction activities would compact soil, which can decrease infiltration during construction. However, the size of the construction area (3.18 acres) would be minimal compared to the overall size of the groundwater basin; therefore, there would not be a substantial change in infiltration or groundwater recharge compared to the existing condition.

Operation of the proposed project would not require groundwater extraction. Following project implementation, there would be an increase in impervious surface area of 0.59 acre on the project site. An increase in impervious surface area decreases infiltration, which can decrease the amount of water that is able to recharge the aquifer/groundwater. According to the Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation (December 2017) prepared for the project, on-site groundwater infiltration is infeasible due to the shallow depth to groundwater. However,




compared to the volume of the groundwater basin, any reduction in on-site infiltration would not be substantial. Thus, this project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

(c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact. The discussion of drainage below is limited to the eastern portion of the project site, where drainage patterns would be altered by the proposed project. No changes to the drainage patterns on the western half of the site would occur with project implementation. In the existing condition, stormwater runoff generated from the impervious pavement surfaces (asphalt and concrete) are drained via sheet flow towards v‐gutters and curb and gutters around the project site. Stormwater runoff is collected via downspouts from the roof of the existing building on the eastern portion of the project site and then flows either (1) via curb and gutters onto the on-site asphalt pavement surfaces toward Orangewood Avenue, where it sheet flows out of the driveway apron and into the Orangewood Avenue street gutter, or (2) via a v-gutter, into an on-site catch basin, which leads to the underground storm drainpipe, then to a parkway culvert which discharges into the Western Avenue street gutter which conveys stormwater runoff south to the Orangewood Avenue street gutter. Stormwater runoff percolates on the pervious surfaces (landscaped areas) along the easterly side of the project site. Overflow from the landscaped areas is conveyed via surface flow towards Western Avenue into the street gutter.

In the proposed post-construction condition, the majority of runoff from the southerly portion of the project site would sheet flow into a bioretention area with underdrains, where it would be stored and treated before draining into the underdrain system. The underdrain would convey the runoff south and into an underground storm drain system. The remaining southerly runoff would flow towards a v‐gutter, into a catch basin connected to an underground storm drain system, then into the underground cistern located in the easterly parking lot. Runoff from the easterly portion of the project site would sheet flow towards the v‐gutter and curb and gutter where it would be intercepted by multiple catch basins connected to an underground storm drainpipe and then conveyed into the underground cistern. Runoff from the northerly portion of the project site would sheet flow toward the northerly parking lot where it would be intercepted by a catch basin connected to an underground storm drainpipe and then conveyed to the underground cistern. Overflow from the cistern would be conveyed as backflow to the lowest catch basin grate at the southwest corner of the project site where it would spill out and sheet flow down the driveway apron into the Orangewood Avenue street gutter.

In both the existing and proposed conditions, the Orangewood Avenue street gutter conveys stormwater runoff west to a catch basin and into the underground storm drain system (a 27-inch reinforced concrete pipe [RCP)) owned by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). The 27-inch RCP connects to a 60-inch RCP, which continues west and turns north




3-62

along Markon Drive where it becomes a 66‐inch RCP. The 66‐inch RCP continues north along Markon Drive then turns west along Patterson Drive, where it transitions into a 72‐inch RCP. The 72‐inch RCP continues west then turns north along Knott Avenue, where it discharges into a 6 ft by 8 ft reinforced concrete trapezoidal channel (the Stanton Storm Channel). The Stanton Storm Channel continues in a southwesterly direction and ultimately discharges into Anaheim Bay, Huntington Harbour, and the Pacific Ocean.

During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and the transport of sediment downstream compared with existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed in Response 3.9(a) and specified in Compliance Measure CM-WQ-1, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of an SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation.

The proposed project would increase impervious surface area on the project site by 0.59 acre compared to existing conditions, and would increase runoff peak flow during a storm event. In the proposed condition, the impervious surface areas would not be prone to erosion or siltation. Erosion and siltation would be minimized in the landscaped areas, where soil would be stabilized by vegetation and stormwater would continue to percolate. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase on-site erosion or siltation.

The increase in impervious surface area would increase stormwater runoff generated from the project site. The primary downstream receiving water (Stanton Storm Channel) is not a fully lined concrete channel and portions of the channel are natural and, therefore, susceptible to hydromodification.1 The increased runoff from the project site has the potential to affect the downstream receiving waters by increasing erosion susceptibility of the natural lined portions of the Stanton Storm Channel. The effects of erosion on the channel include morphological changes and instability, which can lead to potential loss of adjacent infrastructure and property damage and degradation of water quality. Stanton Storm Channel eventually discharges into Anaheim Bay and Huntington Harbour. Anaheim Bay is located south of the Anaheim Salt Marsh in the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, which consists of over 800 acres of predominantly salt marshes connected by tidal channels to the bay. Southeast of Huntington Harbour is Bolsa Bay, which is home to the Bolsa Chica wetlands. The adjacent wetlands and marshes are natural habitats that could be impaired by changes in water quality of the influent, which is comprised of the runoff from the channels that serve the watershed.

Because the downstream receiving waters are susceptible to hydromodification, the project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) hydromodification requirements. As specified in Compliance Measures CM-WQ-2 and

1 Hydromodification is the change in the natural hydrologic processes and runoff characteristics (i.e.

interception, infiltration, overland flow, interflow and groundwater flow) caused by urbanization or other land use changes that result in increased stream flows and changes in sediment transport.




CM-WQ-3, the project would include LID BMPs, including underground detention (cistern), rainwater harvesting, and bioretention with underdrains, which would provide hydromodification control. As demonstrated in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (October 2017), with implementation of the BMPs, the project would meet the Santa Ana RWQCB hydromodification requirements, and runoff would not exceed the pre-development, naturally occurring, runoff flow rates and durations by more than 5 percent for the 2-year, 24-hour storm event. Therefore, the project would not create a hydrological condition of concern, and impacts to downstream erosion and siltation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation would be required. Compliance Measures CM-WQ-1, CM-WQ-2, and CM-WQ-3, listed above in Response 3.9(a), would be implemented to reduce impacts related to erosion and siltation.

(d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would alter the on-site drainage pattern, potentially compact on-site soils, and increase the potential for flooding compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Response 3.9(a) and specified in Compliance Measure CM-WQ-1, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction. Proper management of storm water during construction would reduce impacts associated with flooding.

The proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the site by 0.59 acre, which would increase runoff peak flow during a storm event. As required by Compliance Measures CM-WQ-2 and CM-WQ-3, the project would include LID BMPs to provide hydromodification controls to reduce off-site runoff. With implementation of the LID BMPs, post-development runoff would not exceed existing conditions and off-site flooding would not occur. Additionally, as specified by Compliance Measure CM-WQ-5, as outlined below, a final detailed Hydrology Report will be prepared in order to ensure that storm drain facilities serving the project site are appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff and ensure that on-site flooding would not occur. Therefore, with the implementation of Compliance Measures CM-WQ-2, CM-WQ-3, and CM-WQ-5, potential impacts related to on- or off-site flooding resulting from the alteration of existing drainage patterns on the site would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation would be required. In addition to Compliance Measures CM-WQ-2 and CM-WQ-3 listed in Response 3.9(a), Compliance Measure CM-WQ-5, listed below, would be implemented to reduce impacts related to drainage.




3-64

Compliance Measure:

CM-WQ-5 Hydrology Report. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project/Applicant shall submit a final Hydrology Report, or equivalent, to the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or appropriate designee, for review and approval. The hydrology report shall demonstrate, based on hydrologic calculations, that the project’s on-site storm conveyance and retention facilities are designed in accordance with the requirement of the Orange County Public Works Orange County Hydrology Manual (October 1986, Addendum 1996).

(e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response 3.9(a), earthwork activities would compact soil, which can increase stormwater runoff during construction. Drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and construction-related pollutants such as liquid and petroleum products and concrete-related waste could be spilled, leaked, or transported via storm runoff into adjacent drainages and into downstream receiving waters. As specified in Compliance Measure CM-WQ-1, the proposed project would be required to comply with requirements set forth by the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of an SWPPP and implementation of construction BMPs to control stormwater runoff and discharge of pollutants.

As discussed under Response 3.9(a), excavation activities for the proposed project would extend up to 4.5 ft bgs. Due to the depth of groundwater on the site (approximately 13 to 17 bgs), groundwater dewatering would not likely be required during construction.

As discussed in Response 3.9(a), expected pollutants of concern from the project site include suspended solids/sediment nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. As required by Compliance Measures CM-WQ-2 and CM-WQ-3, a Final WQMP would be prepared for the project that details the Source Control and LID BMPs that would be implemented to treat stormwater runoff and reduce impacts to water quality during operation. The proposed LID BMPs include underground detention (cistern), rainwater harvesting, and bioretention with underdrains. Additionally, catch basin inserts with fossil filters would be installed in on-site catch basins. These BMPs would capture and treat stormwater runoff and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Additionally, stormwater would continue to be managed during operation in compliance with the operational SWPPP as required by the Industrial General Permit (Compliance Measure CM-WQ-4).

As discussed under Responses 3.9(c) and 3.9(d), the proposed project would increase the impervious surface area on the project site by 0.59 acre compared to existing conditions, which would increase runoff generated on the project site. As required by Compliance Measures




CM-WQ-2 and CM-WQ-3, the project would include LID BMPs to provide hydromodification controls to reduce off-site runoff. With implementation of the LID BMPs, post-development runoff would not exceed existing conditions and, therefore, the capacity of downstream receiving waters would not be exceeded. Additionally, as specified by Compliance Measure CM-WQ-5, a final detailed Hydrology Report would be prepared in order to ensure that storm drain facilities serving the project site are appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff.

For the reasons discussed above, with adherence to Compliance Measures CM-WQ-1 through CM-WQ-5, project impacts associated with the introduction of substantial sources of polluted runoff or additional runoff would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation would be required. Compliance Measures CM-WQ-1 through CM-WQ-5, listed above in Responses 3.9(a) and 3.9(d), would be implemented to reduce impacts related to the contribution of pollutants and storm drain capacity.

(f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 3.9(a).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation would be required. Compliance Measures CM-WQ-1 through CM-WQ-3, listed in Response 3.9(a), would be implemented to reduce impacts to water quality.

(g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include a housing component. Therefore, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impacts would occur related to placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, and no mitigation would be required.

(h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year special flood hazard area. According to the Safety Element of the City of Garden Grove General Plan (May 2008), the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map No. 06059C0117J (December 3, 2009) the project site is in an area designated as Zone X: Other Flood Areas. Zone X: Other Flood Areas are areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood), areas of 1 percent annual chance flood (i.e., 100-year flood) with average depths of less than 1 ft or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile, or areas protected by levees from the 1 percent annual chance flood. Specifically, according to the FIRM, the project site is in an area of a 0.2 percent annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood). Because the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, and because the proposed project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area or




3-66

impede or redirect flood flows, no impacts associated with this topic would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

(i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Less Than Significant Impact. A levee is a type of dam that runs along the banks of a river or canal that provides flood protection. A levee system failure could create severe flooding and high water velocities. The project site is not in an area protected by a levee. Dam failure is defined as the structural collapse of a dam that releases the water stored in a reservoir behind the dam. A dam failure is usually the result of the age of the structure, inadequate spillway capacity, or structural damage caused by an earthquake or flood. According to the Safety Element of the County of Orange General Plan (2012), the project site, along with the entire City, is within the Prado Dam Inundation Area. Prado Dam is an earth-fill dam across the Santa Ana River at the Chino Hills near the City of Corona in Riverside County. The impounded water behind Prado Dam creates the Prado Flood Control Basin Reservoir.

Prado Dam was designed in the 1930s, but has increased its functioning capability due to Seven Oaks Dam, which was completed in November 1999, and is approximately 40 miles upstream on the Santa Ana River. During a flood, Seven Oaks Dam stores water destined for Prado Dam for as long as the reservoir pool at Prado Dam is rising. When the flood threat at Prado Dam has passed, Seven Oaks Dam begins to release its stored flood water at a rate that does not exceed the downstream channel capacity. Working in tandem, the Prado and Seven Oaks Dams provide increased flood protection to Orange County.

Prado Dam is maintained and inspected to ensure its integrity and to ensure that risks are minimized. In addition, construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project was initiated in 1989, and is scheduled for completion in 2020. The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project will increase levels of flood protection to more than 3.35 million people in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Improvements to 23 miles of the Lower Santa Ana River channel, from Prado Dam to the Pacific Ocean, are 95 percent complete, with the remaining bank protection improvements in Yorba Linda currently under construction. Improvements to the Santa Ana River channel include construction of new levees and dikes. In addition, the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project includes improvements to Prado Dam that are currently underway and are estimated to be completed in 2021. The Prado Dam embankment has been raised, and the outlet works have been reconstructed to convey additional discharges. Remaining improvements to Prado Dam include acquisition of additional land for the expansion of the Prado Reservoir, construction of protective dikes, and raising of the spillway (Orange County Flood Division, Prado Dam 2018a; Santa Ana River 2018b).

Although the project would construct new structures in an inundation zone and increase the number of employees on the site from 180 to 216 (72 employees in each shift), the proposed project would not increase or exacerbate the chance of inundation from the failure of Prado Dam. Therefore, project impacts related to the exposure of people and structures to significant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embankment_dam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_River

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_River

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chino_Hills

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_County,_California

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prado_Flood_Control_Basin




risk associated with flooding as a result of dam failure would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

(j) Would the project inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) in an enclosed or partially enclosed bodies of water, such as reservoirs, lakes, harbors, and bays. Such waves can flood adjacent properties. There are no major water-retaining structures located near the project site; therefore, there is no risk of inundation on the project site from a seismically induced seiche. The risk associated with seiches is, therefore, not considered a potential hazard or a potentially significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.

Tsunamis are generated wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and volcanic eruptions. The project site is approximately 7 miles from the Pacific Ocean. According to the State of California Department of Conservation Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located within a tsunami inundation area. The risk associated with tsunamis is, therefore, not considered a potential hazard or a potentially significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.

Mudslides and slumps are described as a shallower type of slope failure, usually affecting the upper soil mantle or weathered bedrock underlying natural slopes and triggered by surface or shallow subsurface saturation. The project site is relatively flat and is not located downslope of any area of potential mudflow. The risk associated with mudflow is, therefore, not considered a potential hazard or a potentially significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.




3-68

3.10 LAND USE PLANNING

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Physically divide an established community?

(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP)?

Discussion:

The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on information provided in the City of Garden Grove General Plan, Zoning Code (Title 9), and the Irvine Industrial Complex Supplemental Regulations (Planned Unit Development [PUD]-103-76).

Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 131-021-38 and 131-021-39) that, when combined, are approximately 10.4 acres (451,833 square feet [sf]). The project site is bounded by Orangewood Avenue to the south, Western Avenue to the east, and industrial uses and surface parking lots to the north and west. The project site is primarily surrounded by industrial uses, with commercial uses also present northeast, east, and west of the project site. Residential uses are present in areas to the north, west, and east of the project site (refer to Figure 2.2, Existing Land Uses).

The project site is located in an urbanized, industrial area and is developed with an industrial/manufacturing building and a vacant industrial/warehouse building, loading docks, storage areas, and at grade parking lots. The project would involve the expansion of the existing business, which would include a proposed connection between the two existing industrial buildings through the development of an approximately 36,763 sf Central Building. Development of the proposed Central Building would combine the two existing buildings on the site, bringing the total building square footage on the site to 243,416 sf at project completion.

Vehicular access to the site would be provided via the existing central driveway on Orangewood Avenue and the existing driveways off Western Avenue. However, the project proposes the permanent vacation of the easternmost driveway along Orangewood Avenue.




The proposed project would require a Lot Line Adjustment in order to accommodate the proposed building expansion, site improvements, and access improvements. Approval of the Lot Line Adjustment would combine the two existing parcels into a singular parcel on the project site.

The proposed expansion of the existing industrial buildings, access improvements, and parcel re-adjustments would occur on two adjacent parcels in a built-out urban environment and would not result in physical divisions within any established community. No mitigation is required.

(b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less Than Significant Impact. The main documents regulating land use on the project site are the City of Garden Grove (City) General Plan and the City’s Zoning Code. The project site is designated Industrial in the General Plan and is classified as PUD-103-76 on the City’s Zoning Map. The proposed project’s relationship to these planning documents is described further below.

General Plan. The City’s General Plan is a policy document guiding future development within the City. The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive plan intended to guide growth and development in the City. The Land Use Element is considered the framework for the General Plan because it establishes development and land use patterns that enhance the City’s character. Section 2.5 of the Land Use Element outlines goals and policies, which are carried out through specific implementation programs. Table 3.10.A, below, provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project with the applicable policy and implementation program, showing that the proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element. In order to avoid repetition and focus on key issues, multiple goals, policies, and implementation programs that are not relevant to the proposed project are not included in Table 3.10.A.

The proposed project includes an expansion of two existing industrial buildings through a one-story center connection, which would increase the overall square footage by 36,763 sf. The project site is designated as Industrial (refer to Figure 2.5, General Plan Land Uses) on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. The Industrial land use designation allows light industrial uses such as warehousing and distribution or business parks, and more intensive industrial uses such as manufacturing, fabrication, assembly, processing, trucking, warehousing and distribution, and servicing. There would be no change in use of the project site, which would continue to operate in an industrial/manufacturing capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the City’s General Plan land use designation and would also be consistent with surrounding land uses in the project area (e.g., primarily industrial uses).




3-70

Table 3.10.A: Land Use Element Consistency Analysis

Policy/Implementation Program Proposed Project Consistency

Policy LU-7.2. Limit redesignations or rezoning of land from industrial use, unless the land is within Focus Area E2 or Focus Area L. Avoid encroachments of incompatible land uses in close proximity to industrial land.

Consistent. The project site is currently designated as Industrial on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map and zoned as PUD-103-76, which support industrial uses. There is no zone change proposed as part of the project. Additionally, the project site is not located within Focus Area E2 or Focus Area L. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy LU-7.2 because it would not re-designate or rezone land from industrial use.

LU-IMP-7C. Apply City plans and codes to industrial building and sites to ensure that current and rehabilitated facilities meet City standards for maintenance, landscaping, and community design.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with maintenance, landscaping, and community design standards required by the City’s Municipal Code, as well as the [Irvine Industrial Complex Supplemental Regulations (1992)]. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Implementation Program LU-IMP-7C.

City = City of Garden Grove PUD = Planned Unit Development

Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, and no land use conflict would occur. No mitigation would be required.

Zoning Code. The City’s Zoning Code is the primary implementation tool for the goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element. For this reason, the Zoning Map must be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. The City’s Land Use Map indicates the general location and extent of future development in the City. The City’s Zoning Ordinance, which includes the Zoning Map, contains more specific information related to permitted land uses, building intensities, and development standards.

The project site is located within the Irvine Industrial Complex area of the City. The Irvine Industrial Complex is bounded by the Stanton Storm Channel to the north, Western Avenue to the east, Chapman Avenue to the south, and Chapman Sports Complex and Knott Avenue to the west. Based on the City’s Zoning Map (also refer to Figure 2.6, Zoning Map), the entire [Irvine Industrial Complex] area is currently zoned PUD-103-76. A planned unit development (PUD) is a precise plan, adopted by ordinance, which provides the means for the regulation of buildings, structures, and uses of land in order to facilitate the implementation of the General Plan. The regulations of the planned unit development are intended to provide for a diversity of uses, relationships, and open spaces in an innovative land plan and design, while ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.

PUD-103-76 was adopted in 1992 and serves as the primary document regulating development on the project site and in the surrounding area. PUD-103-76 is divided into the following four areas: Industrial Commercial Area, Multi-Tenant Industrial Area, Special Industry Area, and Industry Area.

The project site is located within Area 4 (Industry) of PUD-103-76. According to PUD-103-76, permitted uses within Area 4 include research activities, manufacturing, distribution and storage, warehousing, construction industries, service industries, support uses (e.g., commercial




sales, photo engraving, and printing), accessory uses and structures related to a permitted use, and agriculture as a continuation of the existing land uses. Conditionally permitted uses include utility service yards, furniture warehouse sales, rug and carpet sales, building products and/or sales, extraction of natural resources, and heliports.

Development standards that apply to permitted uses in PUD-103-76 are outlined in Section V of the Irvine Industrial Complex Supplemental Regulations (1992) (Supplemental Regulations). Table 3.10.B, below, provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project with the development standards outlined in the Supplemental Regulations. In order to avoid repetition and focus on key issues, development standards that are not relevant to the proposed project are not included in Table 3.10.B. The proposed project is consistent with most of the development standards outlined in the Supplemental Regulations.

Table 3.10.B: Supplemental Regulations Consistency Analysis

Development Standards Proposed Project Consistency

Section V.D.1. Minimum site size for industrial parcels shall be 27,500 square feet.

Consistent. The project site is approximately 451,833 sf, which is greater than the minimum site size of 27,500 sf. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.D.1.

Section V.D.2. Structures may not cover more than 50 percent of the net lot area.

Consistent. Upon project implementation, the proposed project would cover approximately 46.5 percent of the site (total lot coverage of 210,053 sf/451,833 sf lot size). Therefore, the lot coverage would satisfy this requirement and is, therefore, consistent with Section V.D.2.

Section V.E.1. Front and/or exterior street side setbacks shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet except for Chapman and Knott Avenues, which shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet and Western Avenue, which shall be a minimum of seventeen (17) feet.

Consistent. The proposed setback from Western Avenue is approximately 69 ft, which is greater than the minimum requirement of 17 ft. Additionally, the proposed setback from Orangewood Avenue is approximately 75 ft, which is greater than the minimum requirement of 20 ft. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.E.1.

Section V.F.1.Maximum building height of sixty (60) feet. Consistent. The proposed project would have a maximum building height of 34 ft, which is less than the maximum of 60 ft. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.F.1.

Section V.G.1.a. Landscaping will consist of an effective combination of street trees, trees, ground cover, and shrubbery provided with suitable irrigation. All unpaved, non-work areas (excluding vacant lots) will be landscaped.

Consistent. The proposed landscaping would consist of a variety of trees, ground cover, and shrubs. In its existing condition, street trees are present at the project site. As part of the project, all unpaved, non-work areas would be landscaped. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.G.1.a.

Section V.G.2. The entire area between the curb and a point eighteen (18) feet in back of the curb shall be landscaped, except for any vehicular or pedestrian access way in said area.

Consistent. The project proposes new landscaped areas along the project’s eastern and southern boundaries. On the project site, the proposed landscaping would extend greater than 18 ft from the existing curbs along Orangewood Avenue and Western Avenue, not including vehicular/pedestrian access ways. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.G.2.




3-72



Section V.G.3. Boundary landscaping is required on all interior property lines unless a zero building setback is utilized. Said boundary landscape areas will be placed along the entire length of property lines. Trees, equal in number to one (1) tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of the interior property line, will be planted in the boundary area in addition to required ground cover and shrub material.

Consistent. The project proposes new landscaped areas along the project’s northern boundary. The number of proposed trees would exceed one tree per thirty lineal feet of the northern property line. A variety of ground cover and shrubs would also be planted along the northern property line. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.G.3.

Section V.G.5.a. Parking areas shall be landscaped and/or fenced in a manner as to screen said areas from view of all adjacent access streets and other properties or at a minimum have view of said area visually interrupted. Plant materials used for screening will consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees of a sufficient size and height to meet this requirement and combined with walls or berming as necessary.

Consistent. As part of the proposed project, landscaping would be included within parking areas, as well as along the eastern and southern boundaries of the project site. The proposed landscaping would visually screen parking lots from adjacent streets and would include a variety of different sized trees, ground cover, and shrubs. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.G.5.a.

Section V.G.5.b. Trees, not less than fifteen (15) gallon size, equal in number to one (1) per each five (5) parking stalls and provided with adequate irrigation systems, will be installed in and around the parking area.

Consistent. All trees proposed as part of the project would be no less than 15 gallons in size and would be provided with adequate irrigation systems. In addition, there would be a total of 355 parking stalls on the project site. The development standard requires no less than one tree per five parking stalls, meaning that no less than 71 trees should exist in the parking area. In combination with existing trees to remain on the project site, the project would provide a total of 85 on-site trees. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.G.5.b.

Section V.H.1. Required off-street parking will be provided on the site of the use served, or on a contiguous site.

Consistent. All parking provided as part of the project would be located on site. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.H.1.

Section V.H.2. In addition to the following standards, parking requirements by land use, including size of spaces, aisle widths, etc., will conform to regulations of the City of Garden Grove.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with all parking regulations as required by the City’s Municipal Code Section 9.16.040, Commercial/Office, Industrial Development Standards. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.H.2.

Section V.H.2.a. Office: One (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area.

Consistent. The proposed project includes 33,346 sf of office space, which would require approximately 134 parking stalls. The project would require 351 parking stalls, including 134 spaces for office uses, 165 spaces for manufacturing, and 52 spaces for warehouse uses. The project would provide 355 parking stalls in total, surpassing the project’s total parking requirement of 351 parking stalls. Therefore, the proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is consistent with Section V.H.2.a.






Section V.H.2.b. Manufacture: Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than two (2) spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, plus one (1) space for each vehicle operated from and stored at the subject site.

Consistent. The proposed project includes 82,148 sf of manufacturing space, which would require approximately 165 parking stalls. The project would require 351 parking stalls, including 134 spaces for office uses, 165 spaces for manufacturing, and 52 spaces for warehouse uses. The project would provide 355 parking stalls in total, surpassing the project’s total parking requirement of 351 parking stalls. Therefore, the proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is consistent with Section V.H.2.b.

Section V.H.2.c. Warehouse: Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than one (1) space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet; one (1) space for each 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; one (1) space for each 4,000 square feet of gross floor area for areas in excess of the initial 40,000 square feet of floor area of the building. If there is more than one (1) shift, the number of employees on the largest shift shall be used in determining parking requirements.

Consistent. The proposed project includes 127,922 sf of warehouse space, which would require approximately 52 parking stalls. The project would require 351 parking stalls, including 134 spaces for office uses, 165 spaces for manufacturing, and 52 spaces for warehouse uses. The project would provide 355 parking stalls in total, surpassing the project’s total parking requirement of 351 parking stalls. Therefore, the proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is consistent with Section V.H.2.c.

Section V.J.1.a. No fence or wall shall exceed eight (8) feet in height except that a twelve (12) foot fence may be permitted subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator.

Consistent. The project proposes installing a 7 ft high fence that would traverse the project site in a north-south fashion and would extend from the northern boundary of the site to the northern boundary of Building B. The proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.J.1.a.

Section V.J.2.a. Walls or fences of sheet or corrugated iron, steel, aluminum, asbestos, or security chain-link fencing are specifically prohibited.

Consistent. Although the project would install a 140 ft chain-link fence along the northern boundary of the site, the fence would include plastic slats that would serve to visually buffer the site from surrounding industrial uses. The use of slats in the chain-link fence would also serve to convey an appearance of a more traditional fence than the appearance of security fencing, which itself is expressly prohibited by this section of PUD-103-76. Therefore, the proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.J.2.a.

Section V.J.2.b. Chain-link fencing is permitted when combined with redwood battens.

Consistent. The City has agreed to allow the Applicant to use plastic slats in place of redwood battens along the chain-link fencing proposed on the Project site. The use of plastic slats are easier to maintain than redwood slats and serve the same purpose of redwood battens in screening the project site from surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed project would satisfy this requirement and is therefore consistent with Section V.J.2.b.

The proposed project would expand the existing industrial/manufacturing uses on the project site by constructing a new building that would connect the two existing industrial buildings on the project site, which would be consistent with the permitted uses in PUD-103-76. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Code, and no mitigation is required.




3-74

(c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP)?

No Impact. As previously stated, the project site is currently developed and is located in an urban area. The project site is not located in or adjacent to an existing or proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other habitat conservation plan in the City of Garden Grove. More specifically, the City is not located within the boundaries of the Orange County Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no mitigation would be required.




3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?

(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Impact Analysis:

(a) Would the project 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?

No Impact. In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The areas are categorized into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ):

MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.

MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.

Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance because such areas are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as being “regionally significant.” Such designations require that a Lead Agency’s land use decisions involving designated areas be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency’s jurisdiction.

The project site has been classified by the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as being located in MRZ-1, indicating that the project site is located in an area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that




3-76

little likelihood exists for their presence.1 In addition, the project site is not designated or zoned for the extraction of mineral deposits.

The proposed project would not result in the loss of a known commercially valuable or locally important mineral resource. No impacts to known mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project, and therefore no mitigation would be required.

(b) Would the project 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?

No Impact. As stated in Response 3.11(a), the project site is classified as MRZ-1, indicating the site is located where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The project site is currently developed with an industrial/manufacturing building and a vacant industrial/warehouse building, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. No mineral extraction activities occur on the project site, and it is not located within an area known to contain locally important mineral resources. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as a result of project implementation. No mitigation would be required.

1 California Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification Map. Los Alamitos Quadrangle,

Special Report 143, Plate 3.17. Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_143/PartIII/Plate_3-17.pdf (accessed February 7, 2018).




3.12 NOISE

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?

(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion:

The following section is based on noise measurements, modeling, and analysis conducted by LSA (refer to Appendix E for noise measurements) for the proposed project. The discussion and analysis provided in this section describes the potential short-term construction noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed project, as well as long-term operational noise impacts.

Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity

The project site is located directly north of Orangewood Avenue and west of Western Avenue. Surrounding uses include industrial uses to the north, west, and south along with an existing restaurant, storage facility and residential uses to the east. The uses to the east are within the Stanton city limits. The closest residential use is approximately 160 feet (ft) from the easternmost existing building (Building B) on the project site. The new project building connecting the two existing structures would be located approximately 400 ft from existing residential uses.




3-78

Technical Background

The following provides an overview of the characteristics of sound and the regulatory framework that applies to noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site.

Characteristics of Sound. Sound is increasing to such disagreeable levels in the environment that it can threaten quality of life. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep.

To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a sound wave resulting in the tone’s range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound and is used to describe a noisy or quiet environment. It is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effect on adjacent sensitive land uses.

Measurement of Sound. Sound intensity is measured through the A-weighted decibel scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound, similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of such frequencies. Decibels, unlike linear units (e.g., inches or pounds), are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve.

For example, 10 decibels (dB) is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more intense than 1 dB, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense than 1 dB. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represents 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 1 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).

Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from its source. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If a sound is produced by a line source (e.g., highway traffic or railroad operations), it decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. In a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation, sound produced by a line source decreases 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.

There are many metrics used to rate potential noise impacts. First, the determination of whether the source type is stationary or non-stationary is made. For the purposes of noise analyses, non-




stationary sources include roadway traffic, as well as train and aircraft operations, which are often governed by criteria presented in the jurisdiction’s Noise Element of the General Plan. For all stationary sources, which also includes mobile noise sources located within specific property boundaries, the appropriate noise criteria are often contained in the local jurisdiction’s Municipal Code.

The base metric for assessing noise level impacts is the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq), which calculates the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. For stationary sources that operate intermittently within an hour, percentile noise levels are used for enforcement purposes. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level—that is, half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level. The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, the Leq and L50 are approximately the same. Should a source operate for a period of less than 1 minute or create impact noise,1 then the maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period, is utilized. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax, which reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise as well as the appropriate percentile noise level criteria.

To assess non-stationary noise sources, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours), and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long-term noise traffic noise impact assessment.

Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first category includes audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1 dB and 3 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise levels of less than 1 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels (3 dB or greater) are considered potentially significant.

Physiological Effects of Noise. Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of

1 “Impact noise” refers to sound resulting from an instance when an object collides with another object.




3-80

noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear (the threshold of pain). A sound level of 160–165 dBA will result in dizziness or the loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas.

Characteristics of Vibration. Vibration refers to ground-borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground-borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors where the motion may be discernible. However, without the effects associated with the shaking of a building, there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Building damage is not a factor for normal development projects with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 vibration velocity decibels (VdB) or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with ground-borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 ft of the vibration source, although there are examples of ground-borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 ft (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2006). When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. For most projects, it is assumed that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground-borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, construction of the project could result in ground-borne vibration that could be perceptible and annoying. Ground-borne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path usually will be greater than ground-borne noise.

Ground-borne vibration has the potential to disturb people as well as damage buildings. Although it is very rare for ground-borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings (FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006). Ground-borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). RMS is best for characterizing human response to building vibration, and PPV is used to characterize the potential for damage. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration velocity level in decibels is defined as:

Lv = 20 log10 [V/Vref]




where Lv is the velocity in decibels (VdB), “V” is the RMS velocity amplitude, and “Vref” is the reference velocity amplitude, or 1 x 10-6 inches per second used in the United States. Table 3.12.A illustrates the human response to various vibration levels, as described in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006).

Table 3.12.A: Human Response to Different Levels of Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration

Vibration Velocity Level

Noise Level

Human Response Low Freq1 Mid Freq

2

65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA Approximate threshold of perception for many humans. Low-frequency sound usually inaudible; mid-frequency sound excessive for quiet sleeping areas.

75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this level unacceptable. Low-frequency noise acceptable for sleeping areas; mid-frequency noise annoying in most quiet occupied areas.

85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Low-frequency noise unacceptable for sleeping areas; mid-frequency noise unacceptable even for infrequent events with institutional land uses (e.g., schools and churches).

Source: Table 7-1. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration (2006). 1 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 Hz. 2 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz. dBA = A-weighted decibels Freq = Frequency

Hz = Hertz VdB = vibration velocity decibels

Factors that influence ground-borne vibration and noise include the following:

Vibration Source: Vehicle suspension, wheel types and condition, track/roadway surface, track support system, speed, transit structure, and depth of vibration source

Vibration Path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth

Vibration Receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption

Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock.

Experience with ground-borne vibration indicates that (1) vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff clay soils than in loose sandy soils, and (2) shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface and can result in ground-borne vibration problems at large distances from the track. Factors such as layering of the soil and depth to water table can have significant effects on the propagation of ground-borne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils.




3-82

Applicable Noise Standards. The applicable noise standards governing the project site are contained in the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan (Noise Element) and Chapter 8.47 of the City’s Municipal Code. In accordance with the Municipal Code, a noise level increase of 5 dBA over the ambient base noise level or existing average ambient noise level at an adjacent property line is considered a noise violation. The City of Stanton is located directly east of the project; therefore, it should be noted that the standards presented in Chapter 9.28 of the City of Stanton Municipal Code are consistent with the City of Garden Grove Municipal Code standards described below.

General Plan. California Government Code Section 65302(g) requires that a Noise Element be included in the General Plan of each county and city in the State. The Noise Element of the City General Plan is intended to identify sources of noise and provide objectives and policies that ensure that noise from various sources does not create an unacceptable noise environment. Overall, the City’s Noise Element describes the noise environment (including noise sources) in the City, addresses noise mitigation regulations, strategies, and programs, as well as delineating federal, State, and City jurisdiction relative to rail, automotive, aircraft, and nuisance noise.

The City’s noise standards are correlated with land use categories in order to maintain identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the ambient noise levels within a specified zone. The City uses the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services as a tool for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. These guidelines are set forth in the City’s General Plan Noise Element in terms of the CNEL.

In accordance with the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix from the State of California Office of Planning and Research, found in Table 7-1 of Noise Element of the City’s General Plan, a noise exposure of 50 to 75 dBA is considered normally acceptable for industrial and manufacturing uses. Noise levels of up to 80 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable. New development in this range should only be undertaken after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design.

Municipal Code. Section 8.47.040, Ambient Base Noise Levels, provides ambient base noise levels that can be used to determine noise level exceedances. The City’s ambient base noise levels are shown in Table 3.12.B.

The ambient base noise levels contained in Table 3.12.B can be used as the basis for determining noise levels in excess of those allowed by the City’s Municipal Code, unless the actual measured ambient noise level occurring at the same time as the noise under review is being investigated exceeds the ambient base noise level contained in the table. According to the Municipal Code, when the actual measured ambient noise level exceeds the ambient base noise level, the actual measured ambient noise level should be used as the basis for determining whether or not the subject noise exceeds the level allowed by this section.




Table 3.12.B: Ambient Base Noise Levels

Use Categories Use Designations Ambient Base Nosie Levels Time of Day

Sensitive Residential Use 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

50 dBA 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Conditionally Sensitive Institutional Use 65 dBA Any Time

Office – Professional Use 65 dBA Any Time Hotels & Motels 65 dBA Any Time

Non-Sensitive Commercial Uses 70 dBA Any Time

Commercial / Industrial Uses within 150 ft of Residential Uses

65 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 dBA 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Industrial Uses 70 dBA Any Time

Source: City of Garden Grove Municipal Code (2011). dBA = A-weighted decibels ft = foot/feet

In situations where two adjoining properties exist within two different use designations, the most restrictive ambient base noise level applies. The City’s Municipal Code also permits any noise level that does not exceed either the ambient base noise level or the actual measured ambient noise level by 5 dBA, as measured at the property line of the noise-generating property.

Additionally, subsection C of Section 8.47.050, General Noise Regulation, provides the following criteria used when the operation in question occurs for less than 30 minutes in an hour:

1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour;

2. The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour;

3. The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour;

4. The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or

5. The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.

According to the City’s Municipal Code, in the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

Section 8.47060, Special Noise Sources, Subsection D, Construction of Buildings and Projects, states:

It shall be unlawful for any person within a residential area, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures, or projects, or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist, or any other construction type device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day in such a manner that a person of normal sensitiveness, as determined utilizing the




3-84

criteria established in Section 8.47.050(B), is caused discomfort or annoyance unless such operations are of an emergency nature.

Additionally, Subsection I, Loading/Unloading, of the same section states:

It shall be unlawful for any person in any commercial or industrial area of the City that abuts or is located adjacent to any residential property between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day to load or unload any vehicle, or operate any dollies, carts, forklifts, or other wheeled equipment that causes any noise that disturbs the peace or quiet of the residential neighborhood.

Applicable Vibration Standards

Due to the lack of vibration standards developed for projects similar to the proposed project, vibration standards included in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts, as shown in Table 3.12.C.

The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table 3.12.C lists the potential vibration damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006).

Table 3.12.C: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Building Category PPV

(inch/sec) Approximate LV (VdB)1

Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 102 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 98

Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 94

Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: Table 12-3. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration (2006). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second. inch/sec = inches per second LV = velocity in decibels PPV = peak particle velocity

RMS = root-mean-square VdB = vibration velocity in decibels

FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 102 vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) (an equivalent to 0.5 inch per second [inch/sec] in PPV) (FTA 2006) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a nonengineered timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 VdB (0.2 inch/sec in PPV). The PPV values for building damage thresholds referenced above are also shown in Table 3.12.D, taken from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2013), which included additional building definition and vibration building damage thresholds. Vibration impacts are discussed under Section (b).




Table 3.12.D: Guideline Vibration Potential Threshold Criteria

Structure and Condition

Maximum PPV (inch/sec)

Transient Sources1

Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources

2

Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08

Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10 Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25

Older residential structures 0.50 0.30

New residential structures 1.00 0.50 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50 Source: Table 19. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation (2013). 1 Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or drop balls). 2 Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile

drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. inch/sec = inches per second PPV = peak particle velocity

Thresholds of Significance

A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with the adopted environmental plans and the goals of the community in which the project is located. The applicable noise standards governing the project site are the criteria in the City’s Noise Ordinance. Typically, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code is used to determine when a project results in a significant impact.

Existing Noise Level Measurements

Noise levels at the project site are dominated by traffic on the adjacent streets. Operations at the surrounding commercial and industrial uses as well as aircraft operations in the area are periodically audible. In order to assess the existing noise conditions in the area, noise measurements were gathered along the northeastern portion of the project site (i.e., the area on the site closest to nearby sensitive receptors that would be impacted by noise generated during project construction and operational activities), as well as at the nearest sensitive uses (i.e., residential uses) east of the project site across Western Avenue. One (1) long-term 24-hour measurement was taken from March 27, 2018, to March 28, 2018, while two (2) short-term measurements were gathered on March 28, 2018. The locations of the noise measurements are shown on Figure 3.12.1, Noise Monitoring Locations, with the results shown in Table 3.12.E.




3-86


LEGEND

Project Boundary

Noise Measurement LocationST/LT #

ST-1ST-1LT-1LT-1

ST-2ST-2

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE

WE

ST

ER

N A

VE

NU

E

SOURCE House Foods:

FEET

200010000

N

I:\CGG1801\G\Noise_Locs.cdr (4/25/2018)


FIGURE 3.12.1

Noise Measurement Locations




3-88





Table 3.12.E: Existing Noise Level Measurements

Location Description

Daytime Noise

Levels1

(dBA Leq)

Evening Noise

Levels2

(dBA Leq)

Nighttime Noise

Levels3

(dBA Leq)

Daily Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)

Maximum Noise Levels

(dBA Lmax)

LT-1 Near yard of residence at 11400 Western Avenue – about 40 ft from roadway centerline

72.1–75.2 69.8–73.1 61.3–72.7 76.2 84.0

ST-1 Near yard of residence at 11400 Western Avenue – about 50 ft from roadway centerline

71.0–74.1 68.7 – 72.0 60.2–71.6 75.1 82.5

ST-2 Near the northeast driveway of the existing House Food building at 7421 Orangewood Avenue

72.1–75.2 69.8–73.1 61.3–72.7 76.2 73.5

Source: LSA (March 28–29, 2018). 1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2 Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA = A-weighted decibel ft = foot/feet Leq = the average noise level during a specific hour

Lmax = maximum noise level during a specific period LT = long-term measurement ST = short-term measurement

(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the

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

Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction. Short-term noise impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project. Construction-related, short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, but would cease once project construction is completed.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during project construction. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on roads accessing the project site. Orangewood Avenue and Western Avenue would be used by construction vehicles to access the project site. Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential from truck pass-bys (84 dBA Lmax at 50 ft as shown in Table 3.12.F), noise levels during potential truck pass-bys would be similar to maximum ambient noise levels currently present on the site. Furthermore, the effect on longer-term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small when compared to existing hourly and daily traffic volumes on these roadways. Since construction-related vehicle trips would not approach hourly and daily traffic volumes mentioned above, traffic noise would not increase by 3 dBA. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, short-term construction-related worker commutes and equipment transport noise impacts would be less than significant.




3-90

Table 3.12.F: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax)

Type of Equipment Acoustical Usage

Factor

Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis

(dBA Lmax at 50 ft)

Air Compressor 40 80

Backhoe 40 80

Cement Mixer 50 80

Concrete/Industrial Saw 20 90

Crane 16 85

Dozer 40 85

Excavator 40 85

Forklift 40 85

Generator 50 82

Grader 40 85

Front-End Loader 40 80

Paver 50 85

Roller 20 85

Rubber Tire Dozer 40 85

Scraper 40 85

Tractor 40 84

Truck 40 84

Welder 40 73 Source: Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model. dBA = A-weighted decibel ft = foot/feet Lmax = maximum noise level

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during project construction. Construction is conducted in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics that change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels will vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the types and sizes of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 3.12.F lists the maximum noise levels for typical construction-equipment based on a distance of 50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor.

Typical maximum noise levels range up to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 ft during the noisiest construction phases. For this analysis, the demolition phase, which utilizes industrial saws, dozers and loaders, would generate the highest noise levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

As shown in Table 3.12.F, the maximum noise level generated by each dozer is assumed to be approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the dozer. Each front-end loader would generate approximately 80 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the front-end loader. The maximum noise level generated by each industrial saw is approximately 90 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the grader. Each




doubling of the sound source with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. For example, two of the same pieces of construction equipment operating at the same location and generating a noise level of 85 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft would result in a noise level of 88 dBA Lmax (two pieces of equipment at 85 dBA plus an increase of 3 dBA= 88 dBA). Therefore, the worst-case composite noise level for the proposed project at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction area would be 91.2 dBA Lmax (85 dBA +80 dBA + 90 dBA = 91.2 dBA).

The nearest sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site are the residences at 11400 Western Avenue located approximately 400 ft east of the proposed new building on the project site.

In general, doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA, while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA. The construction noise levels at the residential uses located approximately 400 ft from the new expansion site area would be reduced by approximately 18 dBA due to distance attenuation, resulting in noise levels of up to 73.2 dBA Lmax. The intervening structure at 7421 Orangewood Avenue would also significantly reduce potential construction noise impacts to off-site receptors.

Based on a comparison of the existing maximum noise levels, which range from 82.5 dBA Lmax to 84 dBA Lmax as measured at ST-1 and LT-1 and presented in Table 3.12.E, to expected heavy-truck pass-by levels of 84 dBA Lmax as presented in Table 3.12.F, traffic noise pass-bys associated with construction activities along Western Avenue would be similar to noise levels experienced today and would not cause a significant increase in noise impacts.

Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure that construction noise impacts are reduced to the greatest extent feasible. Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the project vicinity, construction noise would cease to occur once the project construction is completed. Compliance Measure CM-NOI-1 would limit construction hours to be consistent with Municipal Code Standards, and Compliance Measure CM-NOI-2 would require the implementation of noise-reducing measures during construction. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation, construction activity noise impacts would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts. This analysis associated with potential traffic noise related impacts is based on the trip generation summary information included in the transportation section of this document (LSA, 2018). The traffic noise level increase for any given roadway segment in decibels is defined as:

Lincrease = 10 log10 [Vp/Vnp]

where Lincrease is the increase in noise level in A-weighted decibels (dBA CNEL), Vnp is the traffic volume with no project, and Vp is the volume with project.

Based on the traffic volume data, the project would result in an increase of 114 average daily trips (ADT) as compared to the existing ADTs of approximately 8,000 on Orangewood Avenue and 25,000 on Western Avenue, respectively, as presented in the City’s General Plan Circulation




3-92

Element. The project-related noise increase would be extremely low due to this increase in traffic (less than 0.1 dBA) along Western Avenue and Orangewood Avenue. Therefore, no significant off-site noise impacts from project-related traffic would occur and no mitigation would be required.

Operational. As part of the proposed project, the proposed on-site operational noise-generating uses have the potential to impact surrounding uses. These activities are point sources of noise that could affect off-site noise-sensitive receptors, such as residences to the east. As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy; thus, the farther the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level by the receiver. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate, or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dBA reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single-point source of noise, such as a refrigeration unit, to the noise-sensitive receptor or property line of concern. Because specific details of the operational noise sources associated with the proposed project are not currently available, reference noise levels associated with the container refrigeration units, forklift operations, and semi-truck activities were taken from measurements gathered by LSA for a similar project, the Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center – Richmond, CA (LSA 2016). A description of the new sources associated with the new building and their respective sound levels included in the analysis is as follows:

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Units: The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units would be used in order to properly maintain a desired temperature inside the building. The noise level based on reference information from Trane, a commercial HVAC equipment producer, for this piece of equipment is 65.2 dBA Leq at a distance of 10 ft.

Container Refrigeration Units: These external refrigeration units on the semi-containers that carry product which are required to stay cool are used to keep the interior temperatures at a fixed temperature. These units could be in operation for extended periods of time when the containers are at the proposed loading docks. The noise level for this piece of equipment is 82.8 dBA Leq at a distance of 10 ft.

Forklift: Forklifts are used on site to load and unload trailers and move materials. The noise level for this piece of equipment is 81.6 dBA Leq at a distance of 10 ft.

Semi-Truck Arrival and Departure: Impacts associated with the arrival and departure of the semi-trucks with trailer include air brakes release, back-up beeper, and engine noise. The noise level for this activity is 80.2 dBA Leq at a distance of 10 ft.

As shown in Table 3.12.G, below, exterior noise levels, using typical reference information, associated with operations at the project site would not exceed the applicable daytime City standard of 55 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor location. While operations do have the potential to exceed the City’s nighttime standard of 50 dBA Leq, noise levels would not exceed the quietest nighttime hours measured today, therefore a less than significant impact would occur related to project operations. Therefore, based on the current operation assumptions, noise levels generated by the project operations would be less than significant.




Table 3.12.G: Operational Noise Impacts

Source Reference Distance

(ft) Reference Noise Level

(dBA Leq)

Distance from Source to Receptor

(ft)

Individual Equipment Noise Level (dBA Leq)

1

HVAC Equipment 10 65.2 500 31.2

Container Refrigeration Unit 10 82.8 540 48.2

Forklift 10 81.6 540 47.0

Truck Arrival and Departure 10 80.2 380 48.2

Combined Noise Level 52.7 Source: LSA (April 2018). 2 Noise impacts do not take into account noise reduction provided by intervening buildings, which would result in reduced noise levels. dBA Leq = A-weighted decibel hourly noise level ft = foot/feet

Compliance Measures. The following measures would ensure project compliance with the City’s construction noise hours and would reduce construction noise.

CM-NOI-1 Construction Hours. Construction activities occurring as part of the project shall be subject to the limitations and requirements of the City of Garden Grove Municipal Code, which states that construction activities shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

CM-NOI-2 Construction Noise. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that grading and construction plans include the following requirement to ensure that the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities has been achieved:

During all project area excavation and on-site grading, the Construction Contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne

noise levels?


Construction. Vibration generated by construction equipment can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment. The operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings on soil near an active construction area respond to these vibrations, which range from imperceptible to low rumbling sounds with perceptible vibrations, and they can suffer slight damage at the highest vibration levels. Typically, construction-related vibration does not reach vibration levels that would result in damage to nearby structures.




3-94

The Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2013) shows that the vibration damage threshold for continuous/frequent intermittent sources is 0.1 peak-particle velocity (PPV, or inches per second [in/sec]) for fragile buildings, 0.25 PPV (in/sec) for historic and some old buildings, 0.3 PPV (in/sec) for older residential structures, and 0.5 PPV for new residential structures. The manual shows the vibration annoyance potential criteria to be barely perceptible at 0.01 PPV (in/sec), distinctly perceptible at 0.04 PPV (in/sec), and strongly perceptible at 0.1 PPV (in/sec) for continuous/frequent intermittent sources. These thresholds were used to evaluate the potential for short-term, construction-related, ground-borne vibration impacts during the construction of the proposed project.

Dozers and trucks used for the construction of the proposed project would generate the highest ground-borne vibration levels. Based on the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013), a large bulldozer and loaded trucks would generate vibration levels of 0.089 PPV (in/sec) and 0.076 PPV (in/sec), respectively, when measured at 25 ft. Other construction equipment and activities would generate vibration levels much lower than those of dozers and loaded trucks and would therefore result in lower vibration levels. Based on the worst-case condition, the closest building from the project boundary (the industrial buildings located approximately 130 ft to the north of the project site) would experience vibration levels of up to 0.008 PPV (in/sec). This vibration level would be barely perceptible and well below the damage threshold for new construction. Therefore, construction vibration impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Operation. Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of trucks and other on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation and reduce noise, it is unusual for on-road vehicles to cause ground-borne noise or vibration problems. Most problems with on-road vehicle-related noise and vibration can be directly related to a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing the bump or filling the pothole would usually solve the problem. The proposed project would include a new paved surface; therefore, project-related vehicular traffic would not result in significant ground-borne noise or vibration impacts, and no mitigation would be required.

(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the proposed project would generate a nominal increase in traffic noise due to the minimal increase in traffic volumes associated with the proposed project on roadway segments in the traffic study area.

Potential long-term permanent noise impacts associated with project operations would include loading dock activities, HVAC noise, and forklift operations. As discussed above in Response 3.12(a), operational noise from the on-site operation under the current assumptions would not result in exceedances of the exterior noise standards at any of the nearby sensitive receptors and would not exceed existing ambient noise levels resulting in a less than significant impact. No mitigation would be required.




(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Response 3.12(a). Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City’s Municipal Code, as outlined in Compliance Measure CM-NOI-1, and providing the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities as required by Compliance Measure NOI-1, would ensure that potential short-term increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure: Refer to Compliance Measures CM-NOI-1 and CM-NOI-2 in Response 3.12(a).

(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan. The closest airport to the project site is the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, which is located approximately 1.6 miles west of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project would be located outside of the 65 dBA impact zone associated with aircraft operations. Therefore, people working at or visiting the proposed project would not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by the airport, and no impacts would occur.

(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and the proposed project would be located outside of the 65 dBA impact zone associated with the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base. Therefore, people working at or visiting the proposed project would not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by private airstrips, and no impacts would occur.




3-96

3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for

example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized, industrial area and is developed with an industrial/manufacturing building and a vacant industrial/warehouse building, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. The project would involve the expansion of an existing industrial/manufacturing business, which would include a proposed connection between two existing buildings; the proposed expansion area would increase the size of the business by 36,763 square feet (sf).

Construction. Construction of the proposed project would provide short-term jobs over an approximately 13.5-month period. Many of the construction jobs would be temporary and would be specific to the variety of construction activities. This workforce would include a variety of craftspeople, such as cement finishers, ironworkers, welders, carpenters, electricians, painters, and laborers. It is anticipated that the project-related construction labor force would already be located in the project vicinity, and workers would not be expected to relocate their places of residence as a consequence of working on the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to induce substantial population growth or demand for housing through increased construction employment, and no mitigation would be required.

Operation. The proposed project would not cause or result in direct population growth because the project would not provide housing on the project site. Following project implementation, the total number of employees on the site would increase by 36 persons (from 180 to 216). The employees would be distributed between three, 8-hour shifts, totaling an increase of approximately 12 additional employees per shift.




As of January 2018, the City of Garden Grove (City) had a labor force of 24,500, and the County of Orange (County) had a labor force of 1,621,800, with approximately 600 and 50,700 people unemployed, respectively.1 The January 2018 unemployment rate was 2.4 percent for the City and 3.1 percent for the County.2 This suggests an available local and regional labor pool to serve the long-term employment opportunities offered by the proposed project. It is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to be relocated from outside the region to meet the need for 36 employees. Furthermore, the proposed project would be located within a developed area that is already served by all utilities.3 Additionally, the existing regional infrastructure and the established roadway network would be utilized by employees accessing the project site and would not indirectly or directly induce population or growth.

For the reasons stated above, operation of the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth or accelerate development in an underdeveloped area, and any impacts to population growth would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

(b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The project site is currently developed with an industrial/manufacturing building and a vacant industrial/warehouse building, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. No housing currently exists on the project site, and housing displacement would not occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact related to the displacement of housing, and no mitigation would be required.

(c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The project site is currently developed with an industrial/manufacturing building and a vacant industrial/warehouse building, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. No housing currently exists on the project site, and no people would be displaced as a result of project implementation. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing, and no mitigation would be required.

1 State of California Employment Development Department. 2018. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and

Census Designated Places, January 2018. June 21, 2017. Website: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd. ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html#CCD (accessed on March 14, 2018).

2 Ibid. 3 Although the City proposes to increase the capacity of the existing sewer line along Orangewood Avenue,

this utility improvement is separate from the proposed project and would serve to meet the existing and projected demand for sewer lines to convey wastewater from the project area.




3-98

3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

(i) Fire Protection?

(ii) Police Protection?

(iii) Schools?

(iv) Parks?

(v) Other public facilities?

Impact Analysis: (a) (i) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the

provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Fire protection services would be provided to the proposed project by the Garden Grove Fire Department (GGFD). The GGFD provides fire suppression and prevention, emergency medical and rescue services, hazardous materials response, and public education activities to the City of Garden Grove’s (City) residents and has a total of seven stations within the City limits.1 The GGFD’s total emergency activity includes 25 percent fire protection and 75 percent emergency medical services.2 Currently, GGFD employs 92 full-time sworn firefighters.3 In the City’s 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Annual Budget, there are 96 sworn firefighters budgeted.4

The GGFD is divided into two divisions: Operations and Administrative Services/Fire Prevention. The Operation Division is responsible for the GGFD’s response operations. The Administrative

1 City of Garden Grove Fire Department. Facts & Figures. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/fire/

facts (accessed March 19, 2018). 2 Ibid. 3 City of Garden Grove Fire Department. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/fire (accessed

March 19, 2018). 4 City of Garden Grove. Budget 2017–2018 & 2018–2019. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/city-

files/17-18%2618-19-budget.pdf (accessed March 19, 2018).




Services/Fire Prevention Division is responsible for the administrative functions that support operations of the GGFD, as well as fire prevention duties.1

Fire Station No. 5, located at 12751 Western Avenue, is the closest fire station to the project site (approximately 1.4 miles south). Based on proximity, Fire Station No. 5 would be the first to arrive at the project site in the event of an emergency and would thus be designated as the “first-in” station. Fire Station No. 4, located at 12191 Valley View Street, would be designated as the “second-call” station to support Fire Station No. 5. Fire Station No. 4 is located at 12191 Valley View Street, approximately 2.0 miles southwest of the project site. Both Fire Station Nos. 4 and 5 are equipped with one full paramedic engine company (consisting of a captain, an engineer, and two firefighters/paramedics) and one reserve truck company.2

The GGFD is currently in the process of constructing a new fire station to replace Fire Station No. 6, a single-bay fire station located at 12111 Chapman Avenue. Constructed in 1971, Fire Station No. 6 had substantial operational deficiencies and on-going maintenance issues. The new station will be located at 12232 West Street adjacent to West Haven Park, approximately 5.5 miles east of the project site, and will include two apparatus bays, a front office, a visitor lobby, a laundry facility, a kitchen and dining room, a day room, and eight bunk rooms.3 While this station would not directly serve the project site, increased resources would ensure that the City continues to be able to meet citywide response time goals.

Construction. The proposed project would include utility connections to water, gas, and wastewater lines along Western Avenue and Orangewood Avenue. Proposed utility connections include a 6-inch water line that would connect to an existing 12-inch water line on Western Avenue, a 2-inch gas line that would connect to an existing 3-inch gas line on Western Avenue, and an 8-inch process waste line that would connect to an existing 18-inch sanitary sewer line on Orangewood Avenue. As part of a separate project, the City intends to install a 15-inch sewer line to replace the existing 10-inch line on Orangewood Avenue. As such, construction activities have the potential to affect emergency services by potentially requiring partial lane closures during utility installation. Project construction may also necessitate stopping of traffic to accommodate trucks entering or exiting the project site during construction (e.g., for the movement of construction equipment). Therefore, construction activities could temporarily increase response times for emergency vehicles in the vicinity of the project site. Mitigation Measure TRF-1, included in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic, requires that a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP) be prepared for the proposed project to ensure that emergency vehicles would be able to navigate through streets adjacent to the project site that may experience congestion due to construction activities. Mitigation Measure TRF-1 also requires that all emergency access to the project site and adjacent areas be kept clear and

1 City of Garden Grove Fire Department. Organization Charts. Website: http://www.ci.garden-grove.

ca.us/fire/organization-charts (accessed March 19, 2018). 2 City of Garden Grove Fire Department. Facts & Figures. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove. ca.us/

fire/facts (accessed March 19, 2018). 3 City of Garden Grove. Garden Grove to Build $5.5 Million Fire Station to Replace 45-Year-Old Facility.

May 17, 2017. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/fire/station-6-groundbreaking (accessed March 21, 2018).




3-100

unobstructed during all phases of demolition and construction. Traffic management personnel (flag persons), required as part of the CSTMP, would be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRF-1, potential impacts related to emergency access during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRF-1 in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic.

Operation. During 2016, the GGFD responded to 14,914 calls for service; 12,778 (approximately 86 percent) of calls were related to medical emergencies.1

As a project that would expand existing industrial/manufacturing uses on the site, the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in an excessive increase in calls for service. As discussed in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, the proposed project is expected to create jobs for 36 employees within the local labor market. As of January 2018, the City has a labor force of 24,500, and the County has a labor force of 1,621,800, with approximately 600 and 50,700 people unemployed, respectively.2 The January 2018 unemployment rate is 2.4 percent for the City and 3.1 percent for the County.3 This suggests an available local and regional labor pool to serve the long-term employment opportunities offered by the proposed project. As such, it is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would need to relocate from outside the region to meet the need for 36 employees. Although the proposed project may necessitate additional need for fire personnel and staff, such a need would be negligible and would not necessitate new or expanded fire protection facilities.

The proposed Project/Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable building code requirements requiring fire protection devices such as sprinklers, alarms per the California Fire Code (CFC), adequately spaced fire hydrants, and fire access lanes. In addition, Section 18.32.050 of the City’s Municipal Code requires that approved automatic sprinkler systems are installed and maintained as part of the project because the proposed project involves an expansion of more than 2,000 square feet (sf). Project compliance with requirements set forth in the CFC and the City’s Municipal Code would provide fire protection for people and structures, as well as emergency medical services on site. Adherence to applicable codes would decrease the demand for fire services and ensure that there is adequate emergency access on site. Further, as discussed in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would not result in a significant traffic impact to any study area intersections. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair emergency response vehicles.

1 City of Garden Grove. City Performance Report, Fiscal Year July 1, 2016–June 30, 2017. Website:

https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/internet/pdf/citymanager/2016-2017performancereport.pdf (accessed March 21, 2018).

2 State of California Employment Development Department. 2018. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, January 2018. June 21, 2017. Website: http://www.labormarketinfo. edd.ca. gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html#CCD (accessed on March 14, 2018).

3 Ibid.




As stated above, the proposed project would be designed to comply with all GGFD and CFC requirements, would not impair emergency response vehicles or increase response times, and would not substantially increase calls for service, thereby causing the need for new or expanded facilities. Furthermore, the project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone on the Statewide Cal Fire Map for the Orange County Region.1 Therefore, operational impacts to fire protection would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

(a) (ii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Police protection and law enforcement services are provided to the City by the Garden Grove Police Department (GGPD). The GGPD is currently divided into three bureaus: Community Policing, Administrative Services, and Support Services. The GGPD is located at 11301 Acacia Parkway, approximately 5 miles southeast of the project site. The project site falls within the GGPD’s Western Division. Currently, the GGPD employs approximately 159 full-time sworn officers.2 In the City’s 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 Annual Budgets, there are 166 officers budgeted.3 With a current City population of 174,858,4 the service ratio of officers to residents is approximately 0.91 to 1,000.5

In Fiscal Year 2016–2017, the GGPD responded to 68,359 calls for service with an average response time of 4 minutes, 52 seconds, for priority calls.6 The GGFD’s current response time goal is no more than 5 minutes.7 As such, the GGPD is currently meeting its response time goals.

Construction. Refer to Response 3.14(a)(i), above, for discussion on the potential for construction activities to affect emergency services. As required by Mitigation Measure TRF-1 in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic, the Project/Applicant would be required to prepare a CSTMP to ensure that emergency vehicles would be able to navigate through streets adjacent to the project site during construction activities or during partial street closures associated with required utility connection. Mitigation Measure TRF-1 also requires that the GGPD be notified a

1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Orange County FHSZ Map. Website:

http://www.fire. ca.gov/fireprevention/fhsz_maps_orange (accessed March 19, 2018). 2 City of Garden Grove Police Department. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/police (accessed

March 19, 2018). 3 City of Garden Grove. Budgets 2017–2018 and 2018–2019. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/

city-files/17-18%2618-19-budget.pdf (accessed March 19, 2018). 4 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP05. Website:

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/summary-file.2015.html (accessed August 18, 2017).

5 Calculation: 174,858 residents / 1,000 = 174.858; 159 / 174.858 = 0.909. 6 City of Garden Grove. City Performance Report, Fiscal Year July 1, 2016–June 30, 2017. Website:

https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/internet/pdf/citymanager/2016-2017performancereport.pdf (accessed March 21, 2018).

7 City of Garden Grove. Budget 2015–2016. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/internet/pdf/finance/2015-2016_citybudget.pdf (accessed March 19, 2018).




3-102

minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or roadway. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRF-1 would reduce potential construction-related impacts to police services to a less than significant level.

Operation. As previously stated, the proposed project is anticipated to provide 36 new jobs in the City. When considered with the existing population, the project-related employment increase would have no impact on the GGPD’s ratio of police officers per 1,000 residents. As stated in Response 3.14(a)(i), it is expected that the majority of jobs created by the proposed project would be filled by people currently living in the region. Employees would not be expected to relocate their residences. Therefore, the increase in population associated with the proposed project would be minimal compared to the number of police officers currently employed by the City, and would not trigger the need for new or physically altered police facilities. Furthermore, the project would install lighting throughout the parking areas and would also install rolling gates at the entrance and the rear of the proposed buildings to restrict public access to the majority of the site and ensure public safety on the site. Therefore, operational impacts to police services would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRF-1 in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic.

(a) (iii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the Garden Grove Unified School District (GGUSD). The GGUSD currently encompasses 28 square miles and includes schools within the City, as well as schools in the Cities of Anaheim, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Stanton, and Westminster.1 As the third largest school district in the County, approximately 45,000 students from preschool to high school are currently enrolled in one of GGUSD’s 68 public schools.2 Additionally, more than 5,000 full-time and part-time employees work at the GGUSD, making it the largest employer in the City.3

The proposed project does not include any residential uses that would increase population growth, generate an increased demand for school facilities, or require the construction of school facilities. Although the project is anticipated to increase employment by 36 positions, the project-related increase in jobs would be nominal in comparison to the available labor force in the City and County and as such, would not generate an increase in school-aged children that would require the need for new or expanded public school services within the GGUSD. Therefore, the project would not result in increases in demand for public school services or related services, and no mitigation is required.

1 Garden Grove Unified School District. Schools. Website: http://www.ggusd.us/schools#elementary

(accessed March 16, 2018). 2 Garden Grove Unified School District. Employment. Website: http://www.ggusd.us/employment

(accessed March 15, 2018). 3 Ibid.




(a) (iv) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Community Services Department oversees the operation and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities throughout the City. According to the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element, the City of Garden Grove currently maintains 14 parks and uses 5 public schools as additional park facilities through joint-use agreements with the GGUSD, totaling 157.1 acres of parkland throughout the City. The General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element requires the provision of 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

As discussed in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, the project could add approximately 36 new employees to the City’s work force. There are no existing parks or other recreation uses adjacent to the project site. In addition, the project site does not fall within a Parkland Service Area, which means it is not located within a reasonable distance from a park (0.5-mile radius from a community or neighborhood park, 0.25-mile from a mini park).1 The closest park to the project site is Chapman Sports Complex, which is approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the project site. The park and recreational facility covers 11.0 acres and includes soccer fields, ball fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, handball courts, a roller-hockey rink, and restrooms. Refer to Table 3.15.A in Section 3.15, Recreation, for a list of parks and associated amenities within 3 miles of the project site.

Although the project is anticipated to increase employment in the City by 36 jobs, the project-related increase in employment would be nominal compared to the amount of available park acreage and recreational space within the City. While it is possible that project employees may visit parks and use facilities during breaks or after work hours, such visitation would not significantly affect park performance or maintenance, and would not require the expansion of parks within the City. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

(a) (v) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) system provides library services within the jurisdictions of the County’s cities as well as unincorporated areas.2 There are three library branches currently serving the City: Garden Grove Tibor Rubin Branch located at 11962 Bailey Street (approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the project site); Garden Grove

1 City of Garden Grove. 2008. Exhibit PRK-2, Parkland Service Area. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

Element. May 2008. 2 Orange County Public Libraries. About OCPL. Website: http://ocpl.org/services/about (accessed March 16,

2018).




3-104

Chapman Branch located at 9182 Chapman Avenue (approximately 2.3 miles southeast of the project site); and Garden Grove Main Branch located at 11200 Stanford Avenue (approximately 4.9 miles southeast of the project site). Due to its proximity, the Garden Grove Tibor Rubin Branch would likely serve the project site. Amenities include library materials, computer access, meeting room space, and study areas.

As discussed previously, development of the proposed project would result in an increase of an estimated 36 new employees in the City. While it is possible that employees may visit library facilities during breaks or after work hours, the impact would not significantly affect OCPL system performance, and would not require the expansion of libraries within the City. Because the proposed project does not include residential uses, it is unlikely that the implementation would increase demand for library facilities, and impacts to library facilities would, therefore, be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.




3.15 RECREATION

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and is developed with an industrial/manufacturing building and a vacant industrial/warehouse building, loading docks, storage areas, and on-site parking lots. According to the City of Garden Grove’s (City) Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element, the City of Garden Grove currently maintains 14 parks and uses 5 public schools as additional park facilities through joint-use agreements with the Garden Grove Unified School District (GGUSD), totaling 157.1 acres of parkland throughout the City. Additionally, the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element requires the provision of 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

As discussed in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, the expansion of the existing business proposed by the project could add approximately 36 new employees to the City’s work force. There are no existing parks or other recreation uses adjacent to the project site. As discussed in Section 3.14, Public Services, the project site does not fall within a Parkland Service Area, which means it is not located within a reasonable distance from a park. However, as shown in Table 3.15.A, multiple parks and recreational facilities in the City and neighboring jurisdictions are located within 3 miles of the project site.

The City’s community parks are generally 3 to 40 acres in size and offer a variety of active and passive recreational facilities for use by the entire community. The City’s neighborhood parks typically range from 1 to 10 acres in size and offer more passive recreation opportunities for local neighborhoods. Mini-parks are intended to provide a small area of relaxation and are less than 1 acre in size. The nearest community park is Chapman Sports Complex, which is approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the project site. Other community parks within 3.0 miles of the project site include Eastgate Park (2.2 miles southwest), Magnolia Park (2.4 miles east), and West Grove Park (3.0 miles southwest). The nearest neighborhood park is Edgar School Park, approximately 2.4 miles southwest of the project site. There are no mini parks within 3.0 miles of the project site.




3-106

Table 3.15.A: Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Vicinity of the Project Site

Name and Address Distance

from Project Site (miles)

Type Size

(acres) Amenities

City of Garden Grove

Chapman Sports Complex 11700 Knott Avenue

0.9 Community 11.0 Soccer fields, ball fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, handball courts, a roller-hockey rink, and restrooms.

Eastgate Park 5372 Cerulean Avenue

2.2 Community 4.5 Swimming pool, basketball courts, play equipment, and restrooms.

Edgar School Park 12781 Topaz Street

2.4 Neighborhood 6.0 Soccer field, play equipment, a multi-purpose building, and restrooms.

Magnolia Park 11402 Magnolia Street

2.4 Community 5.9 Swimming pool, basketball courts, tennis courts, play equipment, handball courts, a multi-purpose building, and restrooms.

West Grove Park 12001 St. Mark Street

3.0 Community 6.6 Soccer field, basketball courts, play equipment, a multi-purpose building, and restrooms.

City of Stanton

Stanton Park 11111 Cedar Street

1.1 Neighborhood 5.5 Play equipment, picnic facilities, and restrooms.

City of Cypress

Baroldi Sycamore Park 6616 West Cerritos Avenue

1.8 Neighborhood 1.5 Play equipment, picnic facilities, and barbeques.

Sources: City of Garden Grove. Parks & Facilities. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/pw/parksfacilities (accessed March 15, 2018); City of Stanton. Parks and Facilities. Website: http://ci.stanton.ca.us/Departments/ Community-Services/Parks-and-Facilities (accessed March 15, 2018); and City of Cypress. Facility and Park Locations. Website: http://www.cypressca.org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/8/137 (accessed March 15, 2018).

In addition to City-owned facilities described above, the proposed project would be in the vicinity of two neighborhood parks in neighboring jurisdictions. Stanton Park, operated by the City of Stanton, is located approximately 1.1 mile east of the project site, and Baroldi Sycamore Park, operated by the City of Cypress, is located approximately 1.8 mile northwest of the project site. Due to their proximity, these parks would serve as park amenities serving the project site.

The project does not propose any residential uses and, therefore, would not increase the City’s population that would utilize parks. Although the project is anticipated to increase employment by 36 employees, the number of employees is minor compared to the amount of parks and recreational space within the City and neighboring jurisdictions. While it is possible that employees may visit nearby parks and recreational facilities during lunch breaks or after-work hours, it is unlikely that the use of parks by project employees would increase the use of those parks to a level that would contribute to substantial physical deterioration of those facilities. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to the use of the




existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. No mitigation would be required.

(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. The project would involve the expansion of an existing business, which would include a proposed connection between two existing buildings; the proposed expansion area would increase the size of the business by 36,763 sf. The project does not propose any recreational uses, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required.




3-108

3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact No Impact

(a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

(b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways?

(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

(e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

(f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Discussion:

(a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordnance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction. The proposed project would generate short-term construction-related vehicle trips from construction workers and delivery of construction vehicles. Vehicle trips that would




be generated on a daily basis throughout each phase of construction would derive from construction workers and delivery of construction materials.

The demolition phase is anticipated to be the most traffic-intensive phase due to the total number of haul trips. As illustrated by Table 3.16.A, during peak periods, project construction is anticipated to generate 72 daily haul trips (and 26 daily construction worker trips) that would be distributed throughout an 8-hour day. Assuming a passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor1 of 2.0 for haul trips, 170 PCE haul trips are anticipated to be generated on a daily basis during this phase of construction, with approximately 18 PCE trips occurring during both the a.m. and p.m. weekday peak hours. The weekday a.m. peak period is 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the weekday p.m. peak period is 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The majority of construction workers are anticipated to arrive and depart outside the peak hours, while delivery trucks would arrive and depart throughout the day.

Table 3.16.A: House Foods Construction Trip Generation Summary

Land Use Size Unit ADT

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Construction Trips1

Construction Workers 13 Workers 26 0 0 0 0 0 0

Haul Trucks 36 Trips 72 5 5 9 5 5 9

PCE Equivalent (2.0/ haul truck) 144 9 9 18 9 9 18

Construction Trip Total (PCE) 170 9 9 18 9 9 18

Project Trip Generation 462 47 10 57 13 47 60

Trip Generation Comparison (292) (38) (1) (39) (4) (38) (42) 1

Construction trips are based on CalEEMod inputs for the most traffic-intensive 13.5-month-long project construction phase. Specifically, the demolition phase has been selected as the most traffic-intensive phase due to the total number of haul trips. The demolition phase has been assumed to require 716 total haul trips (1 inbound and 1 outbound) over the course of 20 days, 8 hours per day. Haul truck trips are assumed to occur regularly over the course of each construction day. In total, 13 worker trips (1 inbound and 1 outbound) per day are anticipated for this phase. It has been assumed that all workers will need to be on site prior and subsequent to and the construction workday in order to facilitate the removal of demolished materials onto haul trucks.

ADT = average daily traffic PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent

As discussed in further detail below and shown in Table 3.16.A, project build out would generate 462 trips (57 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 60 trips in the p.m. peak hour). The demolition phase would generate fewer daily and peak-hour vehicle trips compared to the project at build out (292 fewer daily trips, 39 fewer a.m. peak-hour trips, and 42 fewer p.m. peak-hour trips). Because application of the City of Garden Grove Traffic Engineering Policy TE 18 Traffic Study Requirements for Development (August 2006) methodology for determining the significance of traffic impacts concluded that the impacts due to project traffic at build out would be less than

1 A PCE is an equivalency factor used to compare a traffic stream composed of different vehicle types to an

equivalent traffic stream composed exclusively of passenger cars.




3-110

significant, it is reasonable to conclude that traffic impacts related to construction of the project, which generates fewer trips, would also be less than significant.

All construction equipment, including construction worker vehicles, would be staged on the project site for the duration of the construction period. In addition, the proposed project construction schedule would comply with the City of Garden Grove (City) Municipal Code Chapter 8.47, which limits construction activities to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. when the project site is within a residential area or within 500 ft of a residential area.

The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. No mitigation is required.

Operation. The traffic impacts of the proposed project during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour were evaluated based on a comparison between the existing and future operating conditions on the project site. Vehicle trip generation calculated for the existing and with-project conditions using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). The ITE trip rates for office, manufacturing, and warehousing uses were applied to the existing and proposed square footages to estimate the vehicle trips to and from the project site for existing (no project) and with project conditions. As shown in Table 3.16.B, the proposed project is anticipated to increase average daily traffic (ADT) (i.e., the number of vehicles entering and existing the project site daily) by 114 trips, the total a.m. peak-hour trips by 16 trips (13 entering and 3 exiting), and the total p.m. peak-hour trips by 18 trips (6 entering and 12 exiting). The two peak-hour periods are defined as the single highest hours of traffic volume along the adjacent street system between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Because the proposed project would only incrementally increase the total number of vehicle trips generated from operational activities on the project site compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would not increase congestion on the surrounding roadway network. Furthermore, the additional number of vehicle trips would be spread over three work shifts. Due to the low vehicle trips associated with project implementation,1 operational traffic impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

(b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways?

No Impact. The 2017 Orange County Congestion Management Program (Orange County Transportation Authority [OCTA] 2017) Appendix B-2, provides criteria for projects not requiring additional analysis of traffic impacts to Congestion Management Program (CMP) monitored

1 According to the City of Garden Grove’s Traffic Engineering Policy TE 18, Traffic Study Requirements for

Development, a traffic study is required for proposed developments that would generate 50 or more vehicle trips during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour.




Table 3.16.B: Existing and Project Vehicle Trip Generation

Land Use Size Unit ADT

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Trip Rates 1

Office TSF 9.74 1.00 0.16 1.16 0.18 0.97 1.15

Manufacturing TSF 3.93 0.48 0.14 0.62 0.21 0.46 0.67

Warehousing TSF 1.74 0.13 0.04 0.17 0.05 0.14 0.19

Project (Renovation and Expansion) Trip Generation

Building A (7351 Orangewood Avenue)

Office 8.876 TSF 86 9 1 10 2 8 10

Manufacturing 53.831 TSF 212 26 8 33 11 25 36

Warehousing 62.333 TSF 108 8 2 11 3 9 12

Subtotal 125.040 TSF 406 43 11 54 16 42 58

Building B (7421 Orangewood Avenue)

Office 24.470 TSF 238 24 4 28 4 24 28


Warehousing 57.143 TSF 99 8 2 10 3 8 11

Subtotal 81.613 TSF 337 32 6 38 7 32 39

Central Building (Expansion)

Office 0.000 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Warehousing 13.844 TSF 24 2 0 2 1 2 3

Subtotal 36.763 TSF 114 13 3 16 6 12 18

Total (Building A, Building B, and Central Building) 243.416 TSF 857 88 20 108 29 86 115

Existing Trip Generation

Building A (7351 Orangewood Avenue)

Office 8.876 TSF 86 9 1 10 2 8 10


Warehousing 62.333 TSF 108 8 2 11 3 9 12

Subtotal 125.040 TSF 406 43 11 54 16 42 58

Building B (7421 Orangewood Avenue)

Office 24.470 TSF 238 24 4 28 4 24 28

Manufacturing 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Warehousing 57.143 TSF 99 8 2 10 3 8 11

Subtotal 61.613 TSF 337 32 6 38 7 32 39

Total 206.653 TSF 743 75 17 92 23 74 97

Trip Generation Comparison (Project - Existing) 114 13 3 16 6 12 18 1

Trip rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th

Edition (2017). Land Use Code (710) - Office Land Use Code (140) - Manufacturing Land Use Code (150) - Warehousing ADT = average daily traffic TSF = thousand square feet

facilities. According to the criteria, projects generating fewer than 2,400 daily trips are below the threshold for a CMP analysis. The reason given is that below this threshold, project traffic could not trigger a significant impact, which is defined as using 3 percent or more of existing roadway capacity. The closest CMP intersection to the project site is the Beach Boulevard/Katella Avenue intersection (0.56 mile northeast of the project site).




3-112

As discussed in Response 3.16(a), above, the proposed project would generate 114 daily trips as compared to existing conditions. Pursuant to the CMP, the proposed project is not required to conduct a CMP Traffic Impact Analysis because the project traffic is not expected to use 3 percent or more of existing roadway capacity.

Therefore, the project would not result in increased trips that could result in conflicts with an applicable CMP. No mitigation is required.

(c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the discussion under Threshold 3.8(e) in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The nearest airport to the project site is the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, which is located approximately 1.6 miles west of the project site. Because the project site is within 20,000 feet (ft) (3.79 miles) of an airport, the project site falls within the 20,000 ft Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base.

The eastern portion of the project site has a height limit of 400 ft above mean sea level (amsl) and the western portion of the project site has a height limit of 350 ft amsl. The project site has an approximate elevation of 53 ft amsl. The proposed connection between the buildings would be one-story and 34 ft in height, which, accounting for the existing site elevation, would result in a maximum height of 87 ft amsl. Therefore, the proposed project would be below the height limitation and would not be considered to interfere with air traffic patterns. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns or a change in location that results in substantial safety risk. No mitigation is required.

(d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

No Impact. Existing access to the project site is provided by three driveways on Orangewood Avenue and two driveways on Western Avenue; however, access at the two driveway points off Western Avenue is restricted to on-site employees through the placement of two mechanically operated gates. The project proposes to permanently vacate the easternmost driveway along Orangewood Avenue; however, the central driveway on Orangewood Avenue would remain in place and would serve as the main entrance to the site for passenger vehicles entering and exiting the site. The existing westernmost driveway along Orangewood Avenue and the driveways off Western Avenue would also provide access to the site following project implementation; however, use of these driveways would be restricted to trucks only. The westernmost driveway off Orangewood Avenue would be an “entrance only” driveway and would lead to an internal roadway along the western and northern boundaries of the site. This internal roadway would ultimately connect to the “exit only” driveway off Western Avenue. Provision of the restricted entrance- and exit-only driveways would serve to minimize vehicular conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles on the site and provide improved connectivity for trucks moving across the site.




The proposed project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. The project does not require any modifications to existing roads or intersections. Furthermore, design of the proposed project would be subject to review by the Director of the City Building Services Division, or appropriate designee. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), and no mitigation is required.

(e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?


Construction. The proposed project would require temporary lane closures on Western Avenue and Orangewood Avenue to allow for utility connections and improvements. Temporary closures associated with the proposed utility connections and improvements would be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual (2014). Among other things, the manual recommends early coordination with affected agencies to ensure that emergency vehicle access is maintained. In this manner, officials could plan and respond appropriately in the event emergency vehicles would be required to access Orangewood Avenue and/or Western Avenue. In addition, the Project/Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP), which would be subject to the approval of the Director of the City Public Works Department, or designee. The CSTMP would require certain conditions (e.g., providing warning signs, lights, and devices) and would require that the City of Garden Grove Police and Fire Departments are notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or roadway work. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRF-1, impacts to emergency access during project construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Operation. Emergency access to the project site would be provided by Orangewood Avenue. Access to/from the site must be designed to City standards and would be subject to review by the Garden Grove Fire Department and the Garden Grove Police Department for compliance with fire and emergency access standards and requirements. Therefore, approval of the project plans would ensure that the proposed project’s impacts related to emergency access during operation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

TRF-1 Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. A Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP) shall be prepared for approval by the City of Garden Grove Traffic Engineer, or designee, and shall be implemented during project construction. The CSTMP will also include the name and phone number of a contact person who can be reached 24 hours per day regarding construction traffic complaints or emergency situations. In addition, the CSTMP shall take into account and include coordination with other construction staging and traffic management plans that are in effect or have been proposed for




3-114

other projects in the City of Garden Grove. The CSTMP may include, but not be limited to, the following:

Construction activities shall be scheduled to reduce the effect on traffic flow on arterial streets.

Construction trucks shall be rerouted to reduce travel on congested streets.

The Construction Contractor shall keep haul routes clean and free of debris including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Construction Contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Traffic Engineer, or designee, of any material, which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas.

If hauling or construction operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the Project/Applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Director of Public Works, or designee.

Construction vehicles, including construction personnel vehicles, shall not park on public streets.

Construction vehicles shall not stage or queue where they interfere with pedestrian and vehicular traffic or block access to nearby businesses.

If necessary, a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) permit shall be obtained for use of oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans facilities.

Construction-related deliveries, other than concrete and earthwork-related deliveries, shall be scheduled to reduce travel during peak travel periods (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday).

If feasible, any traffic lane closures will be limited to off-peak traffic periods, as approved by the City Public Works Department.

Coordination with other construction projects in the vicinity to minimize conflicts.

The Garden Grove Police Department (GGPD) and the Garden Grove Fire Department (GGFD) shall be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or other roadway work.

The Garden Grove Unified School District (GGUSD) shall be notified in advance of any lane closures.

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) shall be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or other roadway work.




Temporary traffic control provisions shall be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual (2014) during all construction activities adjacent to public right-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag persons).

Flag persons in adequate numbers shall be provided to minimize impacts to traffic flow and to ensure the safe access into and out of the site.

Flag persons shall be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access.

All emergency access to the project site and adjacent areas shall be kept clear and unobstructed during all phases of demolition and construction.

In the event that any of the measures included in the CSTMP are violated, the contact person identified on the CSTMP shall immediately notify the City of Garden Grove Traffic Engineer, or designee.

(f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact. Transit service is provided within the project vicinity by the OCTA. Specifically, OCTA operates Routes 25, 29, and 54 within the project vicinity. Route 25 operates along Knott Avenue, originates in the City of Fullerton, and terminates in the City of Huntington Beach. Route 29 operates along Beach Boulevard, originates in the City of La Habra, and also terminates in the City of Huntington Beach. Route 54 operates along Chapman Avenue, originates in the City of Garden Grove, and terminates in the City of Orange.

The proposed project would not affect existing transit service (i.e., bus stops or routes), or conflict with adopted programs, plans, or policies regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise degrade the performance or safety of such facilities. Traffic could increase during construction, but would be temporary, as stated in Response 3.16(a). During operation, project-related traffic would be incrementally greater than existing conditions and would not result in significant unavoidable impacts on transportation facilities within the project vicinity. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.




3-116

3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) 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

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

Discussion:

The analysis provided in this section is based on the results of the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) consultation process completed in support of the proposed project. Letters and responses associated with the consultation process are included in Appendix F of this IS/MND.

Impact Analysis:

(a) Would the project be 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

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

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The following responses address the thresholds in Questions 3.17(a) and 3.17(b), above.

Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives Lead




Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.”

Also per AB 52 (specifically Public Resources Code [PRC] 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required upon request by any California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City of Garden Grove (City) provide it with notice of such projects.

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on March 23, 2018, and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested for the project, as was a list of potential Native American contacts for consultation. The NAHC responded on March 26, 2018, to say that the SLF search was negative for the project area. The NAHC provided a Tribal Consultation List that included the following 19 Native Americans to be contacted:

Campo Band of Mission Indians, Ralph Goff, Chairperson

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal office, Michael Garcia, Chairperson

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal office, Robert Pinto, Chairperson

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Andrew Salas, Chairperson

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Anthony Morales, Chairperson

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Robert Dorame, Chairperson

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, Charles Alvarez

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, Sandonne Goad, Chairperson

Jamul Indian Village, Erica Pinto, Chairperson

Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, Matias Belardes, Chairperson

Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, Teresa Romero, Chairperson

Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Sonia Johnston, Chairperson

La Posta Band of Mission Indians, Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson

La Posta Band of Mission Indians, Javaughn Miller, Tribal Administrator

Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay, Angela Elliot Santos, Chairperson

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, Donna Yocum, Chairperson

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, Cody J. Martinez, Chairperson

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Robert J. Welch, Chairperson

In addition to the aforementioned tribal representatives, the City maintains a list of the following three additional tribal representatives that have requested consultation under AB 52:




3-118

Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, Christopher “Waling Thunder” Granado, Director of Native American Monitoring

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resources Director

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Michael MIrelez, Cultural Resources Coordinator

The City sent letters for the purposes of AB 52 consultation to all of the people listed above on April 5, 2018.

In a letter dated April 16, 2018, Mr. Salas, Chairperson, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, requested AB 52 consultation with the City regarding the proposed project. Mr. Salas stated that the project lies within the ancestral territories of the Kizh Gabrieleno. Mr. Salas also noted that most often, a records search for tribal cultural resources in the project area can result in a “no records found” conclusion; however, this conclusion is based on limited information that has been previously documented regarding California Native Tribes. As such, Mr. Salas indicated that the NAHC will refer the Lead Agency to the tribal representative for the respective Native American Tribe of the area. The letter concluded with a suggestion that the City contact Mr. Salas to conduct consultation by phone or face-to-face meeting. City staff communicated with Mr. Salas via phone and email, and Mr. Salas provided a request for monitoring to occur during grading activities The City met with Mr. Salas on June 7, 2018. During this meeting, Mr. Salas provided the City with recommended measures to be incorporated into the IS/MND. Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-3, and TCR-1 cover the intent of these recommended measures.

No additional responses or requests for consultation have been received.

As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, and Response 3.5(a), the property does not meet any of the California Register criteria and the existing buildings on the project site do not qualify as “historical resources” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC 5020.1(k).

Also discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources and Response 3.5(b), there is little potential for the proposed project to impact prehistoric resources due to significant prior disturbance from past grading and development activities. In the unlikely event archaeological resources are discovered at any time during construction, those activities would be halted in the vicinity of the find until they can be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist (Mitigation Measure CUL-1). Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

As noted above, Mr. Salas, Chairperson, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation stated that the project lies within the ancestral territories of the Kizh Gabrieleno, and requested that a certified Native American monitor from that group be present during all ground-disturbing activities. While Mr. Salas did not present any evidence that the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC




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 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC section 5020.1(k), the City has agreed to require Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities in native soil and outlines procedures to be followed in the event prehistoric cultural resources are discovered. As such, the proposed project would be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City’s consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance.


TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources: Monitoring Procedures. Prior to commencement of any grubbing or grading activities, the Project/Applicant shall present evidence to the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, that a qualified Native American monitor has been retained to provide Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils. The Native American monitor shall be selected by the Project/Applicant from the list of certified Native American monitors maintained by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. If multiple tribal groups request to participate in monitoring, a rotation shall be established and the Project/Applicant shall be responsible to ensure work is distributed as equitably as possible. The Native American monitor shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for tribal cultural resource surveillance. Those procedures shall include provisions for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of resources deemed by the Native American monitor to be tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. These procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, prior to commencement of any surface disturbance on the project site. If prehistoric cultural resources are recovered, all tribal groups participating in the monitoring shall have input in regard to treatment. Native American monitoring shall cease if bedrock or loose sediments that can be demonstrated to be more than 10,000 years old are encountered.




3-120

3.18 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

(f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

(g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes?

Impact Analysis:

(a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not a wastewater treatment facility and is not subject to the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Local governments and water districts are responsible for complying with federal regulations, both for wastewater plant operation and the collection systems (e.g., sanitary sewers) that convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and maintenance is critical for sewage collection and treatment because impacts from these processes can degrade water resources and affect human health. For these reasons, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) receive Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that such wastewater facilities operate in compliance with the water quality regulations set forth by the State. WDRs,




issued by the State, establish effluent limits on the kinds and quantities of pollutants that POTWs can discharge. These permits also contain pollutant monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements. Each POTW that intends to discharge into the nation’s waters must obtain a WDR prior to initiating its discharge.

Implementation of the proposed project involves the expansion of the existing industrial/manufacturing use on the project site by 36,763 square feet (sf) and the utilization of the currently vacant building (Building B) on the eastern portion of the site. Following project implementation, the total building square footage on the site would be 243,416 sf, of which 118,416 sf would be new or newly occupied industrial/manufacturing uses.

As discussed in Response 3.18(b), the project site is in the sewer service area of the Orange County Sanitation District’s Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. This facility is responsible for disposal of treated wastewater. Because Plant No. 1 is considered a POTW, operational discharge flows treated at this plant would be required to comply with applicable WDRs issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City of Garden Grove (City) as well as WDRs outlined by the Santa Ana RWQCB would ensure that wastewater discharges from the project site and treated by the wastewater treatment facility system would not exceed applicable Santa Ana RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. In addition, as discussed in Response 3.18(b), the proposed project is anticipated to generate an additional 320,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater in the year 2020 and 640,000 gpd of wastewater in the year 2040, which would be approximately 0.16 percent and 0.32 percent of the available daily treatment capacity at Plant No. 1 in 2020 and 2040, respectively, and 0.13 percent and 0.26 percent of the available daily treatment capacity at Plant No. 2 in 2020 and 2040, respectively. Additionally, wastewater generated from the proposed project would be typical of industrial/manufacturing wastewater flows in the City and of existing flows from the project site. Therefore, the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project can be accommodated within the existing design capacity of Plant No. 1 and would not result in Plant No. 1 exceeding its wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

(b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?


Water. The City’s main sources of water supply are groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California provided by the Municipal Water District of Orange County. Today, the City relies on 70 percent groundwater and 30 percent imported.1 It is projected that by 2040, the water supply mix will remain roughly the same. The imported water is treated at both the Robert B. Diemer

1 City of Garden Grove. 2016. 2015 Final Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016.




3-122

Filtration Plant located north of Yorba Linda and the F.E. Weymouth Treatment Plant in the City of La Verne.

Delivery of domestic water service in the City is provided by the Water Services Division of the City’s Public Works Department. The Water Services Division is responsible for maintaining the wells, reservoirs, import water connections, and the distribution systems that deliver water throughout the City. To meet its infrastructure needs, the Water Services Division collaborates with other jurisdictions, agencies, and service providers, as required.

The City’s water supply system provides reliable service to a population of nearly 176,649 within the service area. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2016), the total projected water demand for the retail customers served by the City annually is approximately 26,055 acre-feet (af) annually. The City consumed approximately 24,049 af in 2015, and the projected water demand for 2020 and 2040 are 24,078 af and 26,055 af per year, respectively. According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City’s water supplies are projected to meet full service demands.

The proposed project would expand the existing industrial/manufacturing use on the site through the development of 36,763 sf of new building space and the utilization of the currently vacant building (Building B) on the eastern portion of the site. Following project implementation, the total building square footage on the site would be 243,416 sf, of which 118,416 sf would be new or newly occupied industrial/manufacturing uses.

Using water usage estimations provided by the operator of the existing industrial/manufacturing use on the western portion of the site, the projected water demand would increase from 400,000 gpd (448 af annually) to 720,000 gpd (806.5 af annually) in 2020 and 940,000 in 2040 (1,053 af annually).1 Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand associated with new development proposed as part of the project would represent approximately 1.5 and 3 percent of the City’s projected water demand for the years 2020 and 2040 (24,078 af and 26,055 af per year, respectively).

According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City’s available water supply will meet the future projected demand because the City has entitlements to receive imported water from the MWD and also has significant water reserves from local groundwater supplies. Therefore, the City would have adequate water supplies to meet full service demands following project implementation. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water. In addition, the proposed project would implement a number of water conservation measures, including an underground cistern that would be used for collecting rainwater for the irrigation of landscaping on the site and high-efficiency faucets on all hand sinks within the building expansion area, which would further reduce the water demand as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, project impacts associated with an increase in potable water demand are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

1 An increase in 320,000 gpd in 2020 and 640,000 gpd in 2040 (358.5 af and 717 af annually, respectively).




Wastewater. The Garden Grove Sanitary District is the primary agency responsible for the refuse and sewer facilities in the City. The Garden Grove Sanitary District maintains wastewater treatment and collection operations via the City’s Water Services Division of the Public Works Division. The Sanitation Section maintains over 312 miles of sewer lines, 9,700 manholes, and four lift stations throughout the City. However, once wastewater passes through the City’s wastewater system, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for its treatment.1

OCSD is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated by over 2.5 million people living and working in the central and northwestern County of Orange. OCSD facilities would receive wastewater generated from the proposed project. Wastewater from the proposed project would be treated at OCSD’s Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley or at Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. Through these facilities, OCSD successfully collects, conveys, and treats wastewater generated daily in its service area before discharging the treated water into the Pacific Ocean. Average flows for Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are 117 million gallons per day (mgd) and 67 mgd, respectively. The combined average flow at both plants is 184 mgd. Plant No. 1 has a design capacity of 320 mgd, with an average daily flow of 117 mgd. Plant No. 2 has an average daily flow of 67 mgd, with a design capacity of 312 mgd.2

Based on wastewater generation for the existing industrial/manufacturing use on the project site, the proposed project would generate an increase of 320,000 gpd and 640,000 gpd of wastewater from the site in the years 2020 and 2040, respectively. As described further in Section 2.0, Project Description, the City intends to replace the existing sanitary sewer line in Orangewood Avenue. The project would connect to the new sanitary sewer line through the installation of a new 8-inch sewer line. The project site is currently developed and adequately served by the existing wastewater conveyance system; however, the installation on the new sanitary sewer line in Orangewood Avenue by the City would ensure that that there is sufficient capacity in the local and trunk lines to accommodate the project’s wastewater flows. The proposed project would also pay any required sewer connection fees.

As previously stated, the proposed project is anticipated to generate an additional 320,000 gpd (0.32 mgd) and 640,000 gpd (0.64 gpd) of wastewater in the years 2020 and 2040, respectively, which would comprise approximately 0.16 percent and 0.32 percent of the available daily treatment capacity at Plant No. 1 in 2020 and 20403 and 0.13 percent and 0.26 percent of the

1 City of Garden Grove. Sewer Services. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/pw/sewers (accessed

April 5, 2018). 2 Orange County Sanitation Districts, Regional Sewer Service, Facts, and Key Statistics. Website:

http://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewer-service (accessed April 5, 2018). 3 Plant No. 1: Year 2020: (0.32 mgd of project-related wastewater/203 mgd available capacity at Plant

No. 1)*100= 0.16 percent. Year 2040: (0.64 mgd of project-related wastewater/203 mgd available capacity at Plant No. 1)*100= 0.32 percent.




3-124

available daily treatment capacity at Plant No. 2 in 2020 and 2040, respectively.1 Both plants are in compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s wastewater treatment requirements and have the capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not require, nor would it result in, the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or the expansion of existing facilities (other than those facilities to be constructed on site), which could cause significant environmental effects. Project impacts related to the construction of wastewater treatment or collection facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

(c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City is a co-permittee on the North Orange County MS4 Permit issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB pursuant to the NPDES program under Section 402(p) of the federal Clean Water Act. The MS4 Permit regulates urban stormwater runoff, surface runoff, and drainage that flow into the MS4 system. The City’s stormwater drainage system flows into facilities that are owned, operated, and maintained by the Orange County Flood Control District. In compliance with the MS4 Permit, the City is responsible for regulating inflows to and discharges from its municipal storm drainage system. Specifically, the City’s Public Works/Environmental Compliance Division is charged with the task of ensuring the implementation of the MS4 Permit requirements within the City.

As discussed further in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, in the post-project condition, the majority of runoff from the southerly portion of the project site would sheet flow into a bioretention area with underdrains where it would be stored and treated before draining into the underdrain system. The underdrain would convey the runoff south and into an underground storm drain system. The remaining southerly runoff would flow towards a v‐gutter, into a catch basin connected to an underground storm drain system, then into the underground cistern located in the easterly parking lot. Runoff from the easterly portion of the project site would sheet flow towards the v‐gutter and curb and gutter where it would be intercepted by multiple catch basins connected to an underground storm drainpipe and then conveyed into the underground cistern. Runoff from the northerly portion of the project site would sheet flow toward the northerly parking lot where it would be intercepted by a catch basin connected to an underground storm drainpipe and then conveyed to the underground cistern. Overflow from the cistern would be conveyed as backflow to the lowest catch basin grate at the southwest corner of the project site where it would spill out and sheet flow down the driveway apron into the Orangewood Avenue street gutter. The Orangewood Avenue street gutter conveys stormwater runoff west to a catch basin and into the underground storm drain system, where it is ultimately discharged into Anaheim Bay, Huntington Harbour, and the Pacific Ocean.

1 Plant No. 2: Year 2020: (0.32 mgd of project-related wastewater/245 mgd available capacity at Plant

No. 1)*100= 0.13 percent. Year 2040: (0.64 mgd of project-related wastewater/245 mgd available capacity at Plant No. 1)*100= 0.26 percent.




According to the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Appendix D), the proposed project would permanently increase the on-site impervious surface area by 0.58 acre compared to the existing condition, which would increase runoff peak flow during a storm event. The increase in impervious surface area following project implementation would increase stormwater runoff generated from the project site. The increased runoff from the project site has the potential to contribute to increased erosion of the natural lined portions of the Stanton Storm Channel (i.e., the primary downstream receiving water), which is not a fully‐lined concrete channel and includes areas that are natural and therefore susceptible to hydromodification.

Because the downstream receiving waters are susceptible to hydromodification, the project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB hydromodification requirements. As specified in Compliance Measures CM-WQ-2 and CM-WQ-3, the project would include Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs), including underground detention (cistern), rainwater harvesting, and bioretention with underdrains, which would provide hydromodification control. As demonstrated in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, with implementation of the BMPs, the project would meet the Santa Ana RWQCB hydromodification requirements, and runoff would not exceed the pre-development, naturally occurring, runoff flow rates and durations by more than 5 percent for the 2-year, 24-hour storm event. Therefore, the project would not create a hydrological condition of concern, and impacts to downstream erosion and siltation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures would be required; however, Compliance Measures CM-WQ-2 and CM-WQ-3, provided in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, would reduce the proposed project’s impacts related to the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities.

(d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated in Response 3.18(b), above, the project-related increase in water use would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for water. Therefore, the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and would not require new or expanded entitlements. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the planned land uses for the project site. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

(e) Would the project 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?

Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated in Response 3.18(b), the proposed project would generate an increase in wastewater from the project site. However, the increased




3-126

wastewater flows from the proposed project can be accommodated within the existing design capacity of the treatment plants that currently serve the City. Therefore, the wastewater treatment providers would have adequate capacity to serve the project’s anticipated demand in addition to the providers’ existing commitments. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the planned land uses for the project site. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater generation are less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

(f) Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within OC Waste & Recycling’s (OCWR) service area. OCWR administers the countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. OCWR owns and operates three active landfills (i.e., the Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine, and the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano), as well as four household hazardous waste collection centers. All three landfills are permitted as Class III landfills. Class III landfills accept all types of nonhazardous municipal solid waste for disposal.1

Within the City, collection of solid waste is contracted to Republic Services. Republic Services collects solid waste, green waste (e.g., grass clippings and tree and shrub clippings), and items for recycling.

Olinda Alpha Landfill at 1942 North Valencia Avenue in Brea is the closest OCWR landfill to the project site and would provide waste disposal for the proposed project once operational. This landfill is permitted to accept up to 8,000 tons per day (tpd) of solid waste and currently accepts a daily average of approximately 5,000 tpd.2 The anticipated closure date for the landfill is 2030, when the landfill reaches its full capacity. Non-hazardous waste from project construction activities would be recycled to the extent feasible, and where necessary, would be disposed of at the Olinda Alpha Landfill.3 Construction waste is anticipated to be minimal compared to waste generated throughout the lifetime of the project during project operation. The proposed project would generate approximately 0.84 tons of solid waste per day during project operation.4The incremental increase of solid waste generated by the proposed project would constitute approximately 0.03 percent of the remaining daily available capacity (3,000 tpd) at the Olinda Alpha Landfill. Therefore, solid waste generated by the proposed project would not cause the capacity of the Olinda Alpha Landfill to be exceeded. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to solid waste and landfill facilities, and no mitigation would be required.

1 Orange County Waste and Recycling. Landfill Information. Website: http://oclandfills.com/landfill

(accessed April 9, 2018). 2 Orange County Waste and Recycling. Questions and Answers About the Olinda Landfill. Website:

http://oclandfills.com/landfill/active/olindalandfill/olinda_q_n_a. (accessed April 9, 2018). 3 Hazardous waste during project construction and operation would be required to be disposed of at one of

the four hazardous waste collection centers operated by OCWR or would be required to contract with a disposal company to assist with the proper disposal of waste materials.

4 118,416 sf of net new square footage (Industrial Manufacturing/Warehouse use)* 1.42 lbs per 100 sf per day (generation rate obtained from CalRecycle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal) => 1,682 pounds per day (the equivalent of 0.84 tons).




(g) Would the project comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less Than Significant Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) changed the focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies (e.g., source reduction, recycling, and composting). The purpose of the diversion strategies is to reduce dependence on landfills for solid waste disposal. AB 939 established mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. According to the City’s General Plan Conservation Element, in 2005, approximately 199,737 tons of waste produced by the City was disposed in a landfill while 64 tons were burned at a waste-to-energy facility. Of this, household disposal consisted of 52 percent of waste disposal while business disposal consisted of 48 percent.

The proposed project would comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, or federal law. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project would not result in an excessive production of solid waste that would exceed the capacity of the existing landfill serving the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact related to federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes, and no mitigation would be required.




3-128

3.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Would the project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)

(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Impact Analysis: (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially

reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is currently developed and is located in an urban area. No portion of the project site or the immediately surrounding area contains an open body of water that serves as natural habitat in which fish could exist. Likewise, the project site is not suitable to support special-status species, and no known candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are known to inhabit the site. Due to the urban nature of the site and limited on-site landscaping, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant and animal species would be less than significant. Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses, development of the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the natural environment. Implementation of the proposed project would include the removal of some non-native landscaping. The proposed project would include the planting of a variety of trees along the east and south perimeter of the project site, as well as in the interior of the site. The proposed project would also include shrubs and areas of grasses and




turf on site. The existing on-site trees may, however, provide suitable habitat for nesting birds, some of which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Disturbing or destroying active nests that are protected is a violation of the MBTA. In addition, nests and eggs are protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Adherence to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, would ensure that the project complies with the MBTA. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires nesting bird surveys if vegetation and tree removal occur between February 15 and August 31 to reduce potential project impacts related to migratory birds. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

The potential for paleontological resources on the project site is considered low because the site contains Artificial Fill (which has no paleontological sensitivity) at depths of 2 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs) and because the site has been heavily disturbed during past construction activities. However, it is possible that excavation activities associated with the proposed project, which are anticipated to extend to depths of 4.5 ft bgs, could extend into native soils and may unearth unknown archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, requires construction to halt, in the event an archaeological resource is discovered, until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires construction to halt in the event a paleontological resource is discovered until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the find. In the event that human remains are discovered during construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 requires notification of the proper authorities and adherence to standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains. In addition, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 in Section 3.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, requires Native American monitors to be present on site in the event that any native soils are disturbed during project construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and TCR-1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered cultural resources, paleontological resources, or human remains to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CUL-1 through CUL-3, and TCR-1.

(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?)

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed and is located in an urban area. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing tofu manufacturing facility through the construction of a Central Building that would connect two existing buildings on the project site (one of which is currently operating as a tofu manufacturing facility). The proposed project would rely on and can be accommodated by the existing road system, public parks, public services, and utilities. The proposed project would not result in or contribute to a significant biological or cultural impact. Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses, impacts related to the proposed project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.




3-130

(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is currently developed and is located in an urbanized area. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing tofu manufacturing facility through the construction of a Central Building that would connect two existing buildings on the project site (one of which is currently operating as a tofu manufacturing facility). The proposed project would be consistent with all applicable zoning regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or necessitate a Zone Change, a Zoning Variance, or a General Plan Amendment. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and less than significant impacts with respect to aesthetics during project construction impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 in Section 3.1, Aesthetics. As stated previously, the project would also result in less than significant impacts with respect to biological, archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CUL-1 through CUL-3, and TCR-1. Additionally, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to geological hazards and hazardous materials with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Project-related impacts with respect to public services, noise, and traffic would also be less than significant with the incorporation of Compliance Measures CM-NOI-1 and CM-NOI-2 in Section 3.12, Noise, and Mitigation Measure TRF-1 in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic. Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses, development of the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings because all potentially significant impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Compliance Measures CM-WQ-1 through CM-WQ-4 (in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality) and CM-NOI-1 and CM-NOI-2 (in Section 3.12, Noise), as well as Mitigation Measures AES-1 (in Section 3.1, Aesthetics), BIO-1 (in Section 3.4, Biological Resources), CUL-1 through CUL-3 (in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources), GEO-1 (in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils), HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 (in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), TRF-1 (in Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic), and TCR-1 (in Section 3.17, Tribal Cultural Resources).




4-1

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill [AB] 3180) mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs:

The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a Responsible Agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.

The Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. A public agency shall provide the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.

Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), a Responsible Agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the Lead Agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the Lead Agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a Lead Agency by a Responsible Agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources that are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or non-compliance by a Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the Lead Agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.




4-2

4.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES

The mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. The program describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Garden Grove to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed project would be carried out as described in this IS/MND. Table 4.A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this IS/MND and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.




4-3

Table 4.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program

Mitigation Measures Responsible Party

Timing for Standard Condition or Mitigation

Measure

Compliance Verification (date and signature

required)

4.1 Aesthetics

Measure AES-1: Maintenance of Construction Barriers: During construction, the Construction Contractor shall ensure, through appropriate notices and daily visual inspections, that no unauthorized materials are displayed on any temporary construction barriers or temporary pedestrian walkways, and that any such temporary barriers and walkways are maintained in a visually attractive manner. In the event that unauthorized materials or markings are discovered on any temporary construction barrier or temporary pedestrian walkway, the Construction Contractor shall remove such items within 48 hours.

Construction Contractor/City of Garden Grove Community and Economic Development Department Director

During construction

4.2 Agricultural & Forest Resources

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to agricultural or forestry resources. No mitigation would be required.

4.3 Air Quality

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to air quality. No mitigation would be required.

4.4 Biological Resources

BIO-1: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the event that vegetation and tree removal activities should occur within the active breeding season for birds (February 15–August 31), the Project/Applicant (or their Construction Contractor) shall retain a qualified biologist (meaning a professional biologist that is familiar with local birds and their nesting behaviors) to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The nesting survey shall include the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the site that could potentially be affected by project-related construction activities, such as noise, human activity, and dust, etc. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nests (e.g., as much as 500 ft for raptors and 300 ft for nonraptors [subject to the recommendations of the qualified biologist]), and the buffer areas shall be

City of Garden Grove Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee/Project/Applicant (or their Construction Contractor)

In the event that construction activities occur during the breeding season (February 15–August 31)/Prior to commencement of grading activities and issuance of any building permits




4-4




Measure


required)

avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Prior to commencement of grading activities and issuance of any building permits, the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans are consistent with the requirements stated above, that pre-construction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field with orange snow fencing.

4.5 Cultural Resources

CUL-1: Unknown Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). Construction personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project site. The found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2.

Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific requirements regarding California PRC (Section 21083.2) and the treatment of archaeological resources as specified above.

City of Garden Grove Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee

In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities/ Prior to commencement of grading activities




4-5




Measure


required)

CUL-2: Unknown Paleontological Resources. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 50 feet (ft) of the find until a qualified paleontologist (i.e., a practicing paleontologist that is recognized in the paleontological community and is proficient in vertebrate paleontology) has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines. Construction personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project site. If any fossil remains are discovered in sediments with a Low paleontological sensitivity rating (Young Alluvial Fan Deposits), the paleontologist shall make recommendations as to whether monitoring shall be required in these sediments on a full-time basis. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans specify federal, State, and local requirements related to the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources as stated above.

City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee

In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities/Prior to commencement of grading activities

CUL-3: Human Remains. In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50 ft of the discovery shall cease and the County Coroner notified immediately consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the property owner, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City shall consult with the MLD as identified by the


In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site




4-6




Measure


required)

NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment and disposition of the remains. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that all grading plans specify the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, as stated above.

4.6 Geology and Soils

GEO-1: Compliance with Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation. All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical reports for the project site that have been prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler titled (1) Report of Geotechnical Consultation Proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading Docks, and Parking Lot 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California (November 27, 2017) and (2) Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation-Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading Docks, and Parking Lot 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California, (December 2, 2017). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Garden Grove (City) Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading and construction, the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in any subsequent written reports. All conditions contained in the geotechnical investigation reports shall be included on the building plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the City Building Services Division, or appropriate designee, prior to commencement of grading activities.

Director of the City of Garden Grove Building Services Division, or appropriate designee

Prior to commencement of grading activities

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation would be required.




4-7




Measure


required)

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

HAZ-1: Abatement of ACMs, LBPs, and PCBs. Wherever evidence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBPs), or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing electrical fixtures are present in areas proposed for demolition (as documented in the Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Prepared for the House Foods America Corporation located at 7351 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California 92841 [Professional Service Industries, Inc.; November 4, 2016] and the Asbestos & Limited Lead Screening Report Survey [Southland Services; November 14, 2016]), all such materials shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed Construction Contractors according to all applicable regulations during demolition of structures (40 [Code of Federal Regulations] CFR, Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA], Parts 745, 761, and 763). During demolition activities (or activities that would remove or disturb ACMs, LBPs, and/or PCBs), air monitoring shall be completed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations both to ensure adherence to applicable regulations (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD]) and to provide safety to workers and the adjacent community. The Project/Applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., all required waste manifests, sampling, and air monitoring analytical results) to the City of Garden Grove Fire Department (GGFD) showing that abatement of any ACMs, LBPs, or PCB-containing electrical fixtures identified in these structures has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 716, 745, 761, 763, and 795 and California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8, Article 2.6). An Operating & Maintenance Plan (O&M) shall be prepared for any ACMs, LBP, or PCB-containing electrical fixtures to remain in place and shall be reviewed and approved by the GGFD.

Chief of the City of Garden Grove Fire Department, or designee

During demolition activities




4-8




Measure


required)

HAZ-2: Predemolition Surveys and Abatement of Mold. Prior to commencement of demolition activities, the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that predemolition surveys for mold (including sampling and analysis of all suspected building materials) shall be performed in areas of the buildings designated for demolition or construction. All inspections, surveys, and analyses shall be performed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations. If the predemolition surveys do not find mold, the inspectors shall provide documentation of the inspection and its results to the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, to confirm that no further abatement actions are required.

Wherever evidence of mold exists in areas proposed for demolition, all such materials shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed Construction Contractors according to all applicable regulations during demolition of the structure. All remediation activities, worker protection, engineering controls, and personnel protection equipment will be in compliance with the recommendations in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s "Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings" (EPA 402-K-0l-001). The Project/Applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., all required waste manifests and sampling) to the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, confirming that abatement of any mold identified in these structures has been completed.


Prior to commencement of demolition activities

HAZ-3: Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Chief of the GGFD, or designee, shall review and approve a Contingency Plan that addresses the procedures to be followed should on-site unknown hazards or hazardous substances be encountered during demolition and construction activities. The Contingency Plan shall indicate that if construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the Construction Contractor shall stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the GGFD. The GGFD responder shall determine the

Chief of the Garden Grove Fire Department, or designee

Prior to commencement of grading activities




4-9




Measure


required)

next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, and federal regulations.

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

Compliance Measure CM-WQ-1: Construction General Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project/Applicant shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. R4-2014-0024 NPDES Permit No. CAS004003; Construction General Permit). This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents, including a Notice of Intent (NOI), to the SWRCB via the Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The Applicant shall provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the City of Garden Grove (City) Public Works Director, or appropriate designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented for the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall identify construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to ensure that the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation is minimized and to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff as a result of construction activities. Upon completion of construction and stabilization of the project site, the Project/Applicant shall submit a Notice of Termination to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

City of Garden Grove’s Public Works Director, or appropriate designee

Prior to issuance of a grading permit

Compliance Measure CM-WQ-2: Final Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Project/Applicant shall prepare a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The Final WQMP shall be prepared consistent with the North Orange County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document

City of Garden Grove Public Works Director, or appropriate designee

Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits




4-10




Measure


required)

(December 2013), the County of Orange Water Quality Management Plan Template (May 2011), and the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) (2003). The Project/Applicant shall provide the Final WQMP to the City of Garden Grove’s Public Works Director, or appropriate designee, for review and approval. The Final WQMP shall:

Address Site Design BMPs such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas;

Incorporate the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP;

Incorporate Structural and Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP;

Generally describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs;

Identify the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs; and

Describe the mechanism for funding the long-term operation of the Treatment Control BMPs.

Compliance Measure CM-WQ-3: Best Management Practices. Prior to grading or building permit closeout and the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, the Project/Applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs to the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or appropriate designee, for review and approval. Additionally, the Project/Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Garden Grove’s Public Works Director, or appropriate designee, that:


Prior to grading or building permit closeout and the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy




4-11




Measure


required)

All structural BMPs described in the Final WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications;

The Applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Final WQMP; and

An adequate number of copies of the approved project WQMP are available on site.

Compliance Measure CM-WQ-4: Industrial General Permit. Prior to the completion of construction, the Project/Applicant shall provide proof to the City of Garden Grove’s Public Works Director, or appropriate designee, that they have retained a Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner (QISP) to revise the existing operational SWPPP for the project site in compliance with the requirements of the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000001). The Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions in the permit, including implementation of the operational SWPPP, implementation of BMPs, water sampling, analysis, and reporting of stormwater discharges. The Applicant shall submit the revised operational SWPPP to the SWRCB via SMARTS.


Prior to the completion of construction

Compliance Measure CM-WQ-5: Hydrology Report. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project/Applicant shall submit a final Hydrology Report, or equivalent, to the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or appropriate designee, for review and approval. The hydrology report shall demonstrate, based on hydrologic calculations, that the project’s on-site storm conveyance and retention facilities are designed in accordance with the requirement of the Orange County Public Works Orange County Hydrology Manual (October 1986, Addendum 1996).

4.10 Land Use/Planning

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to land use/planning. No mitigation would be required.




4-12




Measure


required)

4.11 Mineral Resources

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to mineral resources. No mitigation would be required.

4.12 Noise

Compliance Measure CM-NOI-1: Construction Hours. Construction activities occurring as part of the project shall be subject to the limitations and requirements of the City of Garden Grove Municipal Code, which states that construction activities shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.


During construction activities

CM-NOI-2: Construction Noise. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, shall verify that grading and construction plans include the following requirement to ensure that the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities has been achieved:

During all project area excavation and on-site grading, the Construction Contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.


Prior to issuance of building permits

4.13 Population and Housing

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to population and housing. No mitigation would be required.

4.14 Public Services and Utilities

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to public services and utilities. No mitigation would be required.

4.15 Recreation

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to recreation. No mitigation would be required.




4-13




Measure


required)

4.16 Transportation/Traffic

TRF-1: Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (CSTMP) shall be prepared for approval by the City of Garden Grove Traffic Engineer, or designee, and shall be implemented during project construction. The CSTMP will also include the name and phone number of a contact person who can be reached 24 hours per day regarding construction traffic complaints or emergency situations. In addition, the CSTMP shall take into account and include coordination with other construction staging and traffic management plans that are in effect or have been proposed for other projects in the City of Garden Grove. The CSTMP may include, but not be limited to, the following:

Construction activities shall be scheduled to reduce the effect on traffic flow on arterial streets.

Construction trucks shall be rerouted to reduce travel on congested streets.

The Construction Contractor shall keep haul routes clean and free of debris including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The Construction Contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Traffic Engineer, or designee, of any material, which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas.

If hauling or construction operations cause any damage to existing pavement, streets, curbs, and/or gutters along the haul route, the Project/Applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Director of Public Works, or designee.

Construction vehicles, including construction personnel vehicles, shall not park on public streets.

Construction vehicles shall not stage or queue where they interfere with

City of Garden Grove Traffic Engineer, or designee

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit




4-14




Measure


required)

pedestrian and vehicular traffic or block access to nearby businesses.

If necessary, a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) permit shall be obtained for use of oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans facilities.

Construction-related deliveries, other than concrete and earthwork-related deliveries, shall be scheduled to reduce travel during peak travel periods (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday).

If feasible, any traffic lane closures will be limited to off-peak traffic periods, as approved by the City Public Works Department.

Coordination with other construction projects in the vicinity to minimize conflicts.

The Garden Grove Police Department (GGPD) and the Garden Grove Fire Department (GGFD) shall be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or other roadway work.

The Garden Grove Unified School District (GGUSD) shall be notified in advance of any lane closures.

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) shall be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or other roadway work.

Temporary traffic control provisions shall be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual (2014) during all construction activities adjacent to public right-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag persons).

Flag persons in adequate numbers shall be provided to minimize impacts to traffic flow and to ensure the safe access into and out of the site.




4-15




Measure


required)

Flag persons shall be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access.

All emergency access to the project site and adjacent areas shall be kept clear and unobstructed during all phases of demolition and construction.

In the event that any of the measures included in the CSTMP are violated, the contact person identified on the CSTMP shall immediately notify the City of Garden Grove Traffic Engineer, or designee.

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources

TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources: Monitoring Procedures. Prior to commencement of any grubbing or grading activities, the Project/Applicant shall present evidence to the City of Garden Grove (City) Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, that a qualified Native American monitor has been retained to provide Native American monitoring services for any construction activities that may disturb native soils. The Native American monitor shall be selected by the Project/Applicant from the list of certified Native American monitors maintained by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. If multiple tribal groups request to participate in monitoring, a rotation shall be established and the archaeologist shall be responsible to ensure work is distributed as equitably as possible. The Native American monitor shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for tribal cultural resource surveillance. Those procedures shall include provisions for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of resources deemed by the Native American monitor to be tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. These procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community and Economic Development Department Director, or designee, prior to commencement of any surface disturbance on the project site. If prehistoric cultural resources are recovered, all tribal groups


Prior to commencement of any grubbing or grading activities




4-16




Measure


required)

participating in the monitoring shall have input in regard to treatment and all materials will be reburied on site at a location deep enough not to be disturbed in the future. Native American monitoring shall cease if bedrock or loose sediments that can be demonstrated to be more than 10,000 years old are encountered. 4.18 Utilities/Service Systems

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to utilities and service systems. No mitigation would be required.




5-1

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.1 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

Mary Medrano, Associate Planner

5.2 CONSULTANT TEAM

The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the IS/MND and/or technical reports in support of the IS/MND. The nature of their involvement is summarized below:

Ashley Davis, Principal in Charge, Environmental

Amy Fischer, Principal, Air Quality and Noise

Ken Wilhelm, Principal, Traffic

Dean Arizabal, Associate, Traffic

J.T. Stephens, Associate, Noise

Nicole West, CPSWQ, QSD/QSP, Associate, Environmental

Kerrie Collison, Cultural Resources Manager

Michael Slavick, Senior Air Quality Specialist

Alyssa Helper, Senior Environmental Planner

Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor

Donson Liu, Transportation Engineer

Akshay Newgi, Air Quality Specialist

Shelby Crampton, Assistant Environmental Planner

Gary Dow, Graphics

Lauren Johnson, Technical Editor




5-2

5.2.1 Amec Foster Wheeler

Martin B. Hudson, Ph.D, Principal Engineer

Gwendolyn Arreguin, Technical Professional II-Geotechnical

Mark A. Murphy, Associate Geotechnical Engineer

5.2.2 Intertek, PSI

Gregory R. Archung, CAC, CDPH I/A, Senior Industrial Hygiene Specialist

5.2.3 Joseph C. Truxaw and Associates

Craig S. Di Bias




6-1

6.0 REFERENCES

Amec Foster Wheeler. 2017. Report of the Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading Docks, and Parking Lot, 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California (Geotechnical Investigation). November 27, 2017.

_____. 2017. Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation-Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility Proposed House Foods Building Additions, Loading Docks, and Parking Lot 7351 and 7421 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California, (Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation). December 2, 2017.

Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Visual Resources Management Guide.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan.

_____. 2010. Economic Sectors Portal. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ghgsectors/ghgsectors.htm (accessed April 2018).

_____. 2017. Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.

California Department of Conservation. 2009. Official Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps (accessed March 13, 2018).

_____. California Important Farmland Finder. Website: https:// maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed February 7, 2018).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Orange County FHSZ Map. Website: http://www. fire.ca.gov/fireprevention/fhsz_maps_orange (accessed March 19, 2018).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

_____. 2014. California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual.

_____. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ 16_livability/scenic_highways/ (accessed April 4, 2018).

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Facts about Mold and Dampness. Website: https://www. cdc.gov/mold/dampness_facts.htm, (accessed June 28, 2017).

City of Cypress. Facility and Park Locations. Website: http://www.cypressca.org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/8/137 (accessed March 15, 2018).




6-2

City of Garden Grove. 2005. Community Vision Statement and Strategic Plan 2005–2010 (Strategic Plan).

_____. 2006. Traffic Engineering Policy TE 18, Traffic Study Requirements for Development. August.

_____. 2008. Exhibit PRK-2, Parkland Service Area. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element. May 2008.

_____. 2008. Garden Grove General Plan 2030. May. Chapter 2: Land Use; Chapter 3: Community Design Element; Chapter 4: Economic Development Element; Chapter 5: Circulation Element; Chapter 6: Infrastructure Element; Chapter 7: Noise Element; Chapter 8: Air Quality Element; Chapter 9: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element; Chapter 10: Conservation Element; Chapter 11: Safety Element.

_____. 2011. Garden Grove Municipal Code.

_____. 2013. 2014–2021 Housing Element. Adopted May 28, 2013.

_____. 2016. 2015 Final Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016.

_____. 2018. City Performance Report, Fiscal Year July 1, 2016–June 30, 2017. Website: https:// www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/internet/pdf/citymanager/2016-2017performance report.pdf (accessed March 21, 2018).

_____. 2018. Garden Grove to Build $5.5 Million Fire Station to Replace 45-Year-Old Facility. May 17, 2017. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/fire/station-6-groundbreaking (accessed March 21, 2018).

_____. Budget 2017–2018 & 2018–2019. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/city-files/17-18%2618-19-budget.pdf (accessed March 19, 2018).

_____. Budget 2015–2016. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/internet/pdf/finance/2015-2016_citybudget.pdf (accessed March 19, 2018).

_____. Parks & Facilities. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/pw/parksfacilities (accessed March 15, 2018).

_____. Sewer Services. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/pw/sewers (accessed April 5, 2018).

City of Garden Grove Fire Department. 2018. Facts & Figures. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/fire/ facts (accessed March 19, 2018).

_____. Fire Department. 2018. Organization Charts. Website: http://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/ fire/organization-charts (accessed March 19, 2018).




6-3

_____. Fire Department. 2018. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us/fire (accessed March 19, 2018).

City of Garden Grove Police Department. 2018. Website: https://www.ci.garden-grove. ca.us/police (accessed March 19, 2018).

City of Irvine. 1992. Irvine Industrial Complex Supplemental Regulations.

City of Stanton. Parks and Facilities. Website: http://ci.stanton.ca.us/Departments/Community-Services/Parks-and-Facilities (accessed March 15, 2018).

County of Orange. 2003. Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP).

_____. 2011. Model Water Quality Management Plan. May.

_____. 2012. General Plan Safety Element.

_____. 2013. Technical Guidance Document. December.

Department of Water Resources. 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin. February.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06059C0117J. December 3.

Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Garden Grove Unified School District. 2018. Employment. Website: http://www.ggusd.us/employment (accessed March 15, 2018).

_____. 2018. Schools. Website: http://www.ggusd.us/schools#elementary (accessed March 16, 2018).

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2017. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.

Joseph C. Truxaw and Associates. 2017. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). October 2017.

Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Resources. Website: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/Listed Resources/?view=county&criteria=30 (accessed April 3, 2018).

Orange County Public Works. 1986. Orange County Hydrology Manual (October 1986, Addendum 1996).




6-4

_____. 2018a. Orange County Flood Division. Prado Dam. Website: http://www.ocflood.com/sarp/prado (accessed March 13, 2018).

_____. 2018b. Orange County Flood Division. Santa Ana River Project. Website: http://www.ocflood.com/sarp (accessed March 13, 2018).

Orange County Sanitation Districts, Regional Sewer Service, Facts, and Key Statistics. Website: http://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewer-service (accessed April 5, 2018).

Orange County Waste and Recycling. Landfill Information. Website: http://oclandfills.com/landfill (accessed April 9, 2018).

_____. Questions and Answers About the Olinda Landfill. Website: http://oclandfills.com/landfill/active/olindalandfill/olinda_q_n_a. (accessed April 9, 2018).

Orange County Water District. 2015. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. June 17.

Professional Service Industries, Inc. 2016. Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Prepared for the House Foods America Corporation located at 7351 Orangewood Avenue, Garden Grove, California 92841 (Phase I ESA). November 4, 2016.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April.

_____. 2015. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March.

_____. 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP). March.

_____. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf (accessed April 2018).

_____. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds (accessed April 2018).

Southland Services. 2016. Asbestos & Limited Lead Screening Report Survey. November 14, 2016.

State of California Department of Conservation. 2009. Official Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps (accessed March 13, 2018).

State of California Employment Development Department. 2018. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, January 2018. June 21, 2017. Website: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd. ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html#CCD (accessed on March 14, 2018).




6-5

United States Census Bureau. 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table DP05. Website: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/summary-file.2015.html (accessed August 18, 2017).

United States Department of Labor. 2017. Appendix A TO §1910.1200—Health Hazard Criteria, Section A.4 Respiratory or Skin Sensitization. Website: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp. show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=10100 (accessed June 27,2017).

United States Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places. Website: https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466 (accessed April 3, 2018).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. PCBs Questions & Answers. January 10, 2017. Website: https://www3.epa.gov/reg ion9/pcbs/faq.html.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (Environmental Conservation Online System [ECOS]). Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Updated September 12, 2017 (accessed March 29, 2018).




6-6


Date post:	03-Nov-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyentuyen
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times